Slashdot Mirror
85 Big Ideas that Changed the World
ccnull writes "Forbes just put out its well thought-out list of 85 breakthroughs since 1917 (sneakers) that have revolutionized the way we live. This is interesting on a number of levels -- crazy trivia (the microprocessor and the answering machine invented in the same year!?), a reminder of the past (the modem: 1962), and a frightening realization that not much of interest has come out of the last 10 years (a whopping 4 of the 85 ideas). Easily digestible and worth discussing."
The reason that our more recent ideas aren't on the list is because we don't know which are the good ones yet. Hindsight is needed to appreciate what we've been doing.
Forbes lists their top 85 *business* breakthroughs...which slants things so that sheetrock is listed whereas the theory of relativity is not.
I'm not trying to imply that "everything has been invented", but I think it's reasonable to argue that the "easy" technological advances have happened.
The things that are left take either much more sophisticated science, or sophisticated materials, and therefore have longer development times.
If you were to graph true innovation (NOT incremental) innovation vs. time I think that the curve is starting to flatten out. We're starting to bump into fundamental physical limitations on a lot of things: IC devices which are subject to quantum effects, the earth's gravity well wrt space travel, high T superconductors.
There's still plenty of room for invention (!), but the time and effort between true invention is becoming greater.
Absolute statements are never true
..."fast, free" website registration. Like the one Forbes used to run me off before reading the article.
Bet it didn't list microwave popcorn, did it? Now THAT is progress we can all get behind!
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Anyone else notice how the ethernet slide has a picture of an rj-11?
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
13) Discourage common courtesy - glorify rudeness and arrogance as being "forceful and dynamic". However, make sure that anybody who dares to critisize somebody for their rudeness is called "intolerant". Manners are the oil that lubricates society - throw as much grit in there as you can.
www.eFax.com are spammers
AGREED! They should not make XXL spandex outfits... Or for that matter XXL T-shirts that say stuff like "Hottie" cause, it is a damn lie....
Two things to consider:
1.) As other posters have written: Hindsight is needed to appreciate breakthroughs which "change...lives in a profound way." If there have been any such breakthroughs, recently (no, I'm not suggesting that Segway will qualify), they haven't yet had time to be fairly judged.
2.) I think it's also worth considering that recent years, more than the past, have seen our "technological progress" move more toward improving existing tools rather than inventing new ones. The obvious example is the internet -- now that its infrastructure is present, and it has been adopted into a large percentage of homes and businesses, we're seeing real and profound development occur. Amazon, eBay, Bibliofind -- hell, even pr0n -- aren't "inventions," per se, but they certainly represent new developments which I suspect may be seen as quite impactful.
Also, the past ten or fifteen years have seen a progressive slide in our economy from product-oriented business to service-oriented business. Maybe it is true that we're not pumping out wold-changing inventions (the Foreman grill and the Popeil pasta maker aside) at the same rate we were a century ago; but I think that it has to be acknowledged that we are also offering (and consuming) services which didn't exist in the past. It's worth considering whether the rate of decline in our production of "inventions" is perhaps matched by our rate of growth in providing "services."
Finally, although I think the above is more relevant, there's the obligatory shot at the Clinton generation: One of the notions held by that generation, I think, is the idea of "quick profit" -- and specifically, that it's quicker, cheaper and generally more efficient to improve upon an existing product, rather than produce something entirely new. I think that generation, as compared to the economic drivers of the 1940s, have been more interested in taking charge of what's around them than developing anew. So if we're seeing less inventions and more "version 2.4"...well, I'm not surprised.
crib
Please don't read my journal
Number one on that list? Not the steam engine or the telegraph, the cotton gin or the McCormick reaper, or even newcomers like electric lights and the telephone. According to the New York Times, the most important invention of the previous century was chemical "frictionless" matches.
I suppose this decision makes a little more sense in a world where most homes and businesses are still heated by coal and lit by kerosene. (And yes, I know it is a bitch to light things with flint and steel.) But I wonder how much of this article will be considered laughable or just plain stupid in 100 years.
--Gondwanaland for Gondwanans!--
I have to disagree with you on that. Sex is a huge tool for personal gratification to us as humans. As such, the ability to have sex is a huge component of the quality of life.
Given that over half the human population in this country is over 40, something that enables them to gratify themselves is a great innovation. You might not appreciate it now but you will when you are older.
Mmmm.. Donuts
The show is all about getting some $$$ for answering some pointless questions and winning something for nothing.
His essay clearly highlights a lot of important issues, but his life and lifestyle put him in the "part of the problem" side.
Part of the problem? C'mon. The guy is trying to promote intelligence by making it seem fun and cool. It completely agrees with near everything he says in the article. Rather than glamorizing people who do nothing for the millions they get (actors, etc), he insteads rewards people for KNOWING something and working to get some KNOWLEDGE, rather than just being a pretty face. Yes, he does it in a way that is designed to attract a younger audience, it's called being part of the solution.
Sitting around writing articles doesn't get you anywhere. Actually going out and showing people what a brain can accomplish, rather than just using their body, may actually make an effect. I'm not calling the guy some sort of savior, it is just a stupid cable show, but I do not think it in any way goes against his general principles.
Don't judge people just based on your preconceived notions of television.
This is the same guy who hosts the pointless trivia
show on Comedy Central "Win Ben Stein's Money".
Yes, let's not discuss the ideas. Let's attack the source instead.
The winnings in Ben Steins show are paltry. The maximum the winner can make is $5,000 - hardly a sum of money you can get rich of. On the other hand, the show provides entertainment (which is the purpose of TV) while delving into the knowledge of history, politics, art, religion and science.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Something that starts off with this line can be considered "Insightful"??
zrodney is attacking the article because it is written by someone who he says is apparently "evil" because he has a game show. That reeks of a Troll to me. I guess not to everyone else.
Lets ignore the fact that his gameshow (like some others) actually rely on the knowledge and intelligence of the contestants to win money and prizes... not just the "luck of the spin of the wheel". Lets also ignore the fact that Ben Stein is a highly intelligent man who has written speeches for U.S. Presidents and presidential candidates. Lets mod this guy up because he talks about the author of the article "being part of the problem with society"... which really has nothing to do with the article at all.
Karma: NaN
Point is, most of the truly life-changing inventions, or at least their introduction into mainstream society, occurred in the first half of the 20th century. We in the tech sector tend to forget that
Point is, you should realize that just because something new hasn't been invented doesn't keep their innovations from being life-changing. The microwave was life changing... we can now prepare food in less time, giving us more time to surf the web. Oh, wait... wasn't the Internet invented in the second half of the 20th century???
show on Comedy Central "Win Ben Stein's Money".
Yes, and the reason it isn't on CBS is that it is, in reality, acutally, COMEDY! It's a joke, he knows it, the contestants know it. It's not like these people are the same ignorant dirtsticks that are STILL showing up for The Price Is Right after 30 frickin years. These social rejects havent left the confort of their sofa in so long, they honestly can't tell that a can Lysol is 2.59? Jesus!
At least it shows that someone has a sense of humor, and a pretty good one in fact. Just look at the difference between Adam Corolla on The Man Show, and Adam Corolla on LoveLine (NOT the eMpTyVee version). While he clearly has a good time on both, one is very clearly a joke, and the other sometimes offers some pretty serious advice to people who need it.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
The real reason you have to wait a few years before listing it, is that you need to let peoples memories fade a bit before you can claim it was an American invention.
Looking through the list, the inventions fall into 4 categories.
1. American inventions, where their origin is made clear. They're quite careful to always list where the inventions came from, along the lines of "(asian/eastern european name) of the University of (somewhere in America)"
2.Foreign inventions, where no mention of their inventors nationality is made. Fleming, the inventor of penicillin is one example.
3. Foreign inventions that are credited to Americans who came along later. Television and computers are two examples.
4. Foreign inventions that are credited to their actual inventors, and nationality acknowledged. I counted 3.
What is it with Americans?
Why do you feed the need to claim the credit for everything?
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
This doesn't surprise me. I was in Helsinki (in the summer thank god) and not only was it a beautiful city, but the people seemed the friendliest, most polite group of sentient creatures I've ever encountered. In Finland, people really seem to care about others. It's hard to believe Finland is so close to Russia. But then I was only there for a short time so what do I know.
I think your analysis is off BTW. The US also has had cell phones for many years, but people here simply don't care if they are bothering others. Not only will they let their cell phones ring but they'll actually answer them in the middle of a movie and talk, while placing one dirty boot on top of the shoulder of the person in front of them while the other boot is simultaneously kicked against the back of the seat. This is in addition to people talking at full volume whenever they want to make a comment about the ongoing movie. Perhaps they want to make sure everyone hears them. Every man for himself.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I live and love IT, but really, it seemed near half the list was some or other minor step in the march of IT towards world domination, with some side bets on medicine, motor cars and financial instruments.
From memory, food got three mentions (frozen, micorwaved and fast/franchised) and construction two (tract housing and Gyprock).
What about glass skinned skyscrapers? If you used the approach they used to IT, I'm sure there could be several more discrete innovations which have made our modern CBDs possible.
But beyond that, and even more essentially American (at least before the rise of China in the last decade) is the interconnected web of manufacturing industry where things like JIT and TQM, of even, in its day, the humble fax, have made a huge difference.
I dunno what I can do but chuckle when a publication like Forbes starts to see the whole world as an IT application. WIRED I can imagine.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Because Microsoft did not *innovate* anything - they simply took existing tech. and throw a lot of marketing (and blind dumb luck -- how DOS got on the IBM PC) at it.
Microsoft might have innovated the intergrated application platform (i.e. Ms-Office) which combines a word processor, spreadsheet, etc....
Or did Lotus beat them to that?