Slashdot Mirror
Ten Technologies That Refuse to Die
kudyadi writes "Technology Review has an interesting article on, as the title suggests, ten technologies that we continue using despite advances made in the same. The best example is that of analog watches, "Compared to today's digital timepieces, old-fashioned, sweep-hand watches are pathetic one-trick ponies. Digital-watch wearers can check temperature, altitude, and the time in Tokyo, play tunes and games, and send messages. Can wristwatch videoconferencing, Web surfing, and tarot readings be far off? But what digital watches can't do, according to sweep-hand proponents, is display the time and context as elegantly and intuitively as an analog model."" Interesting counterpoint to this post from a few years back about technologies that didn't manage to hang on. And Bruce Sterling has a short list of ones he'd like to see go away, too ;)
You have to admit, no matter what side you're on...it's amazing the Mac has lasted this long after being pronounced dead several times.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Guess what? I just want a watch that tells time. I don't want that's tacky, but most digital watches come with this ungainly feature.
Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
floppy drive
Yes, there are some people who use them, but there are fewer and fewer forms to fill out these days that aren't automated.
John
Watches are jewelry, you techno-elitist snob. That's why people don't "upgrade".
What next. I should get my wife cubic zirconium because it looks the same as a diamond but is much cheaper because it was made with "technology". I'm just soooo old fashioned.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Some of us forget that "new" is not necessarily "better".
It is just like over complicated phones. All I need it to do is keep time. Why does every device have to do 11,274 different things?
I've had countless digital watches, most are in the garbage. I also have one or two 'analog' watches that I simply wind up and they work. No batteries, no looking for the manual to figure out how to set the time in Tokyo, no calibrating altitude and temp.
Look at all of the newer technologies today that are:
1. Easier to read
2. Easier to code
3. Object-oriented
4. Facilitate MVC-type architecture
With Python, PHP, J2EE, and so forth, why is Perl still around?
dinner: it's what's for beer
I agree. At work we use a dot matrix printer to print shipping forms that have to be signed. It just prints on one, and using carbon paper, it makes 2 other copies. The benefit of this comes when you sign the top copy and all 3 have the signature on them. With laser printer and making seperate copies, we had to sign 3 papers. So signing 100 copies would become signing 300 copies.
And an important aspect of moving hands is that they convey information in their movement: in a cockpit the altimeter can be "read" very quickly to show whether the aircraft is ascending or descending. On a watch I can get an approximate time (it's almost 4:30pm) in a glance. Yet another example is a digital vs. analog scuba diving pressure gauge: the position of the mechanical arm can be understood very fast without worrying about the exact number of PSI left.
John.
The article makes it sound like analog watch is a bad thing. However, when I look at my watch (analog, of course) I am not really putting any effort to read time. I sort of know that its like 4:20 as I am writing this. It makes it easier too for e.g when I am driving as it doesn't really take my concentration away from the most important thing at that time which is driving.
However, I've owned a digital watch and it takes *some* effort to *read* the actual time. And even after doing that, I form a mental image of what time it is in terms of analog look.
Digital watch? No, thanks. I'ma keep my analog. IMHO
Free XBox, PS2
Yeah, SMTP is the first thing that came to my mind, too. I wish we could just get rid of it (and replace it).
As for identd.. people still use that?
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Those big old machines keep the world running (I mean, if we agree that money moves this fscking world... :P)... I cannot imagine a bank trusting all its data to a cheap PC running XP or whatever... not even a Sun SPARC could handle that volume of data processing....
Dot matrix printers can print half a page, stop and print the second half the next day. And you can read the result between the 2 jobs.
You can use it as an ouput terminal.
Try to do that with a laser printer. Won't die anytime soon.
Iraq: war to save the U
NO KIDDING!!!
This is a general trend of adding garbage to an otherwise simple device. Digitals watches, cell phones, etc.
If you're going to have a multipurpose machine, like a computer, then call it that. Otherwise you end up with a watch that takes the temperature, tells time, takes pictures, has an address book, and makes calls.
Then your cell phone makes calls, tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures and has an address book.
Your handheld address book tells time, takes the temperature, takes pictures, makes phone calls.
Your digital camera takes pictures, tells time...
I had to laugh when I read the story on slashdot. How can OLD watches still hang around that just tell time?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A WATCH IS FOR.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Intuitive, eh? I guess nobody remembers that segment in second grade where you had to learn to read an analog display. The mental map between "Big hand on 2 and little hand on 6" to 2:30 is non-trivial... I mean, did you catch that that time is actually ten minutes after six? It's the reason why kids start out with digital watches.
What analog watches do display intuitively is the amount of time between two events, at least for differences less than an hour (or half hour). It would be interesting to make a linear clock, where you could see tiny slivers of five minutes versus chunks of half hours, and ask kids how easy it is to use versus standard round analog or digital displays.
from the eyes of a non-techie:
Could you please explain counter-clockwise to me again?
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
I definitely agree with the main point of the parent poster. Older technology sometimes just downright works better.
Case in point: New cell phones vs Old cell phones.
New cell phones have mostly all had software problems of sorts, with laggy displays, crashing software (damnit I have to reboot my phone AGAIN), etc, etc. Older cell phones weren't so reliant on the 'cruft' that makes up new cell phone software, and generally worked a LOT smoother, and FAR less buggily.
Example: I have a Motorolla T720 color screen phone, which IMHO, really bites ass. The thing drops calls, I get a black screen of death pretty much every few days (which requires me to completely remove the battery to drain the power), the display is soooo laggy its not even funny, plus many other small software bugs I am sure I can't recall of the top of my head.
I would LOVE to get my old StarTac back...man that thing was rock solid! I even accidentally ran it through a FULL wash cycle in the washer and all I had to do was replace the battery. It also has/had none of the drawbacks I listed for the T720. Operation was as smooth as it could be IMO.
Here's a vote for old technology when it works well.
/* sig */
Well, on the multi-part forms I've used, there's usually spaces for a customer to sign (think - car repair forms at most major dealerships.) Using the same impact during signing (pressure), you get multiple copies, one for the dealership, one for records, and one for the customer, all with the same signature.
I'd hate to have to sign for work multiple times...
Karnal
This list is of devices that work perfectly. They do what they need to without any obnoxious interference. My analog watch tells me the time when I look at it. I never see the latest sports scores or the temperature. I get what I want. The author seems to have left off the broom. Why didn't the broom die when the vacuum was invented? Because the broom served its purpose quickly and efficiently. The broom has been used for at least 5,000 years and will probably continue to be used until humanity is destroyed. Thank goodness for places like OldVersion.com . Newer isn't always better.
For many processes, the multipart form is preferred because at certain steps along the way, one sheet is ripped off while the rest proceed along. If you printed multiple copies on a laserjet instead, you'd have to collate and staple (or do something else) to keep the appropriate copies together - hardly an efficient alternative...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If you have numbered multipart forms then this ensures that the sheets of paper you sign/ship/mail are part of the original multipart form and not a reprint.
Many places want original paperwork, you can't guarantee it with a laser. Dot matrix is still a darn useful technology.
Trolling is a art,
ok, i thought analog watches was a bad inclusion, but vacuum tubes?! Why not throw this round thing called "The Wheel" in there, too? It's old and freaking won't die!
I love my Crate tube amp. It's so nice sounding.
This article... it's credibility is wavering at the moment. The author must have spent a whole 5 minutes looking for inspiration before giving up and writting this lousy article.
The reason watches with moving hands are so successful is that [...] they are extremely fast and easy to read. [...] On a watch I can get an approximate time (it's almost 4:30pm) in a glance.
I think we agree, but I would put it this way: the act of reading an analog display degrades gracefully. If you want accuracy, you can take your time and examine the tick marks closely. If you glance at it, you get a general idea.
With a digital watch, if you glance at it and you only manage to catch the last two digits, you're not much the wiser.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
with the advant of cheap CD-rw burners and dirt cheap flash media its amazing the floppy disk is still around
But what digital watches can't do, according to sweep-hand proponents, is display the time and context as elegantly and intuitively as an analog model
How on earth can you describe an analog watch as more intuitive than a digital watch? More elegant, certainly. But intuitive? A digital watch shows the numbers. If you can read them, you can tell the time. An analog watch uses one set of numbers (or positions, as many don't even have actual numerals on the face) for two different things. You have to learn what each hand means, and what each position means in the context of each hand. Once you learn it, it becomes straightforward and easy, but it's definitely the opposite of intuitive.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Not really. They're two-trick ponies; they tell me the time and the date. Last time I checked, "timepiece" meant "something that tells time".
Digital-watch wearers can check temperature, altitude, and the time in Tokyo, play tunes and games, and send messages.
None of which matters. I don't give a crap about the temperature, because it's moot; if I'm too cold or too hot, my body will tell me, and I'm usually smart enough to, based on time of day, season, location etc...figure out what I'm gonna need to wear(I may even, gasp, open the door and stick my head outside to see for myself). I don't give a crap about altitude, because honestly, that doesn't really mean anything to me, unless it comes on the news that anything under 1000 ft ASL is going to flood within the hour because the whole antarctic shelf just collapsed. I certainly don't give a crap about the time in Tokyo, because if I needed to know that sort of thing on a regular basis, I'd know what the differential is, and be able to do the rather easy math(anyone that can't do addition/subtraction for number under 30 needs serious help). In the meantime, I'll guess that they're approximately 12 hours behind EST since they're on the opposite side of the world.
In fact, the only reason I need a timepiece- since I(and most other people) can tell roughly what time of day it is...is because we need to be at certainly places at certain very specific times, where guessing isn't appropriate. The date function is small because we only need to look at it once a day, maybe twice, to remind ourselves. Form, meet function. So pardon me while I buy the nice, simple analog timepiece that looks nice(and will look nice for at least another 100 years) while you buy your stupid little toy that will break in 5 years(it'll be out of style in 6 months, if you're lucky). Were electric analog timepieces an improvement? Not really. Manual wind, I can sync to my computer, or even a radio program. But my electric analog watch needs battery replacement every year or so, and since it only comes out on special occasions, it's nearly always dead.
I have the same objection to cameraphones. I want my phone to do 3 things. a)let me find a number for someone I know b)let me know when someone is calling c)let me make calls.
Notice nowhere in there was "annoy coworkers with polyphonic ringtones." Or "take pictures"(I use my camera to take pictures, and they look 1000x better than anything any cameraphone will ever produce). Or "tell me the weather". I haven't even bothered to use the AIM functions, or SMS. I use my phone for one thing- telephone calls.
I once mentored for the middle school science olympiad. Mind you, these kids are supposed to be the brightest of the bunch- the kids who enjoy science and thinking on their feet. "Okay, you guys have until 3pm to finish this practice". (loooong pause) "Um, we don't have any watches on." "There's a clock right there on the wall." (blank stares.) "Um...we don't know how to read those kinds of clocks". How pathetic is that?
Please help metamoderate.
We can only hope that it's impossible to get the original tracks from a linkin park session in 50 or 60 years. Hell, I'm hoping they're gone already.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
From the article: "Vacuum tubes Audiophiles have sustained another technology that's even older than magnetic tape. In the 1970s, compact, energy-efficient transistors boded to replace vacuum tubes entirely. But transistors couldn't satisfy some guitar players and hi-fi cognoscenti."
As a guitar player, I'm insulted that this article lumps me in with the conspicuously-consuming audiophiles that drop hundreds of dollars on cleverly marketed cables. Tubes aren't an imaginary sound modifier in guitar amps, they are universally agreed to distort (clip) in much nicer ways when sent an overpowered signal compared to transistors. Only now in the 21st century are we beginning to see digital amps that can compete with this "ancient" technology. The article is correct that the consumer-level tube market is helped along by musicians, but the reasons have nothing to do with Audiophile-type superstition that seems to be implied. The tube vs. solid state harmonic patterns are quantitively different, and empirically better. I would no go so far as to label us as the cognoscenti, but rather people who aren't obviously deaf (and anyone here who has heard a clipping solid state amp will agree).
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
So, don't count. Pick a start time and an end time, neither of which have happened yet (which could be one minute apart as the example goes). Start couting when the start time appears on the digital watch face and count every beat until the end time appears on the watch face. Multiply by an appropriate amount as needed. When I'm taking my own pulse (either using analog or digital devices), I end up doing the exact same thing. I always find the digital method easier to do as many less-expensive analog watches/clocks have a jittery second hand (which second is that pointing at now?).
Besides, I've never met a nurse that takes 60-second pulse readings anymore, it seems the ones I run into always take 10 or 15 second readings and multiply by 6 or 4 respectively.
I think handwriting technology (pens, inks, paper) will be another one. I admit that I have never hidden my love of fountain pens, but even the average Bic has a role. Jotting down a small bit of information while on the phone or standing somewhere is just simpler and quicker with pen and paper.
PDAs have their role, but they can be slow. Plus, I can't jot something down and tape it do a doorway or under a windshield wiper with an LCD screen.
That's not entirely true and certainly quite arguable.
An analogue watch shows the time graphically, a digital watch shows six digits. This is why an analogue watch is considered by many, myself included, to be more intuitive.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm wearing, as we speak, a watch my Grandfather wore 57 years ago that was given to him when he retired from the railroad. It's engraved on the back with the year 1947.
It's and Elgin and it keeps great time. All I have to do is wind it every morning.
No batteries, no weird functions and it's VERY easy to set. It just tells me the time, which is all I need on my wrist.
It will probably be handed down to my son, along with my Martin guitar...another analog thing in this world of Les Paul guitars with ethernet ports.
57 years from now, if my son takes care of them, they'll still be good. I treasure things that I can just pick up and go with. I just pick up my watch, wind it and bam...I'm off. Same with my Martin. I pick up my guitar and play...just like yesterday...then I get on my knees and....whoa, sorry, was channeling Pete there.
But you get my point. Perhaps some of these technologies refuse to die because they just plain work.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
there is no widespread replacement for SMTP, which makes the protocol extremely difficult (read: impossible) to deprecate.
S
Just makes dialing 11 numbers seem that much better.
Who doesn't like free music?
Wit someone down with an analog clock who has never seen one before, and tell me how intuitive it is. How did you learn which hand was the hours? Did you know that the first time you saw one? How did you know how the hands moved? How did you know that they moved at all?
Your logic that it's graphical, therefor intuitive is flawed. I can make lots of graphic representations of time... but I doubt you'll understand them without me explaining them.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
An analogue watch not only displays the current time - but has the reference points for a whole 12 hours. It is vastly more suitable to plan future events/refer to past events. The brain nearly subconciously reads the distances - and the 12 hour clock-face is so ingrained that we can work out relative times instantly. A digital watch involves adding and working out what area of the day the time is.
One could argue that it would work better using a 24 hour circle - but we would have to have been brought up with that as kids. Old habits die hard. I admit that the analogue clock-face has to be explained to kids in school - but it's sure worth the effort.
The only difficulty with analogue clock faces is the problem of translating to 24 hour for checking against time listings (train, bus, TV, etc.). But dealing with the add/subtract 12 hours thing is a minor issue really. On that subject - one doesn't even always have this benefit with digital clocks - my alarm clock, most annoyingly, doesn't have 24 hour display.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
This is one I like. IMO, broadcast radio has survived because it works. You can have a cheap $2 walkman to listen to the radio, or something more fancy. With analogue radio, there are no technology licenses, no patents and no trying to find the specs to some properiety file format or codec.
Now digital radio involves a bunch of semi open technologies, patents and licensing. Sometimes it just seems like technology for technologies sake, and maybe locking people into the royalty cycle?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Well, technically, a vacuum tube does the same thing as a transistor, so the smaller, lighter, cheaper, cooler, and usually more reliable transistor should have replaced the vacuum tube, right?
Do you ever ask yourself -why- vacuum tubes sound better? There's a specific reason.
See, in a guitar amp, what you really want to do is overdrive the sound, creating distortion. That's the nice fuzz sound. When the signal is overdriven, the semiconductor clips off the top of the sound wave.
Vacuum tubes and transistors clip sound waves differently. In a transistor, the clip stays high until the signal drops, causing a square-shaped clip. In a vacuum tube, the signal drops after the clip, creating a sawtooth-shaped clip.
Brass and strings have sawtooth-shaped waveforms. Computers make square-shaped waveforms. So most people "like" the sound of a sawtooth better. So people like the vacuum tube sound better.
MOSFET transistors are now being used in solid-state audio equipment because they, too, have a sawtooth clip when they distort. Now note that this only matters if you actually overdrive the sound; folks who think a tube amp that isn't distorting sounds better than a solid-state amp are probably imagining things. But your Crate sounds better than my solid-state pedal because of the way the semiconductors in 'em clip.
I'm not sure whether the learning process is more intuitive or not, since you have to know how to read in order to tell time on digital watches and can do without that on an analog watch.
However it may be, I think that analog watches are definitely easier to read, you can tell time with just a glance, there are 2 distinct hands on a big round dial. With a digital watch the space is cluttered by the numbers and you have to be sure that you read each number right. Ease of reading is also the reason why many gauges and meters in cars, planes etc are still analog. (even though digital gauges which are a lot cheaper are used increasingly) Have you ever wondered why those crt's in planes display *analog* gauges rather than just some numbers?
Since analog is the original form, and has the most sophsticated interface...it kind of follows that the digital watch is really just a technical triviality, doesn't it?
What do you do, on a semi-regular basis, that you need that kind of "accuracy"? If you're timing events, then your reaction time is going to come into play and your accuracy will be stopped down. At 500ms, you're getting down to the limits of human reaction time which is really at best 100ms. Just admit it man, you're a geek. :)
Bullshit. I'm a medical assistant and I use my digital watch to measure pulses and respiration all the time.
Traditionally, the cognitive mapping necessary to tell analog time is an important developmental milestone. It is commonly the first bit of abstract reasoning that a child does.
How many people here have ever been subjected to a digital speedometer? They've only been put on a few cars in the past, and it seems that they're always eventually replaced with an analog dial. The reason of course, is that you can tell at a glance how fast you're going. With a digital readout, you have to actually read it.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I ask because any time format is arbitrary until you learn it. The digital format in particular makes no sense without initial reference to the standard 12 hour analog clock face. The first two digits represent hours, an arbitrarily defined one-twenty-fourth of the day. The next represents minutes, an arbitrarily defined one-sixtieth of an hour. Without reference to the 12 or 24 and the 60, you have no idea what 09:30 is. It might be just under a tenth of a day, it might be that the day is nearly over. It might be that within whatever section of day the first two digits represent we're nearly one third of the way through, or it might be that we're half way through.
The analogue clock is very clear at first glance, and you only have to look at it a couple of times to know what every aspect of it represents. There's a large hand that goes around quickly, and a small hand that doesn't. At a glance you can see that the small hand is a little over three quarters of the way around, and about the only unintuitive bit is that it's not refering to three quarters of the day, but three quarters of half a day.
That's why it's more intuitive than a series of six digits. Oh sure, it could be more intuitive, but unless we move to a decimal time system, I don't think a digital format is going to be as close to "intuitive" as a clock face for a very long time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I bet I know why women prefer analog watches... because thier fathers wore them. This is another area where girls and guys are fundamentally different. Girls like guys who smell like barbecue, where the same cologne their dad did, an anonlog watch, have grey acents in thier hair, etc... But if a girl reminds a guy of his mother, the relationship'll never get really serious.
Why should it be built to last a lifetime? I mean, you *can* build all sorts of things to last a lifetime, but it's not particularly economically sensible or desireable. Much like the grandparent poster, I have never replaced the battery in a digital watch, as I have never managed to avoid losing a watch long enough for the battery to run out. I admit that most of the features above basic time-telling are probably extraneous, but I do occasionally use a stopwatch, and day of week/month are useful.
I do vaguely like the look of some analog watches, but it's to the same extent that I vaguely like the look of a trackball or a hammer or a fan -- I just don't really care much about how the thing looks -- just how it works. I don't exactly spend time admiring my watch -- I just want the time from it.
I tend to mar faceplates. I don't care how ruggedly built they are, they *will* get scratched. If the watch is a $30 digital watch, it's no big deal. If it's a $200 analog watch, I do care.
I could never figure out people that say that they can "see the time more quickly on an analog watch". It's just nonsensical -- you see it, you know. Perhaps if someone is extremely familiar with their analog watch and doesn't use any devices with LCD digits, they might take a moment to pick up on the thing, but when I look at my watch, it's just like reading a word in your post -- it's there, in my head. A digital watch has the benefit of giving an accurate time reading immediately.
This isn't to bash people with analog watches. There are good reasons for them. They're a status symbol -- it lets someone clearly say that they can blow a lot of money on an expensive watch, or let the NASA folks say "I worked on the Mars lander project". There's a good deal of tradition associated with them, and tradition is fun. It's fun to put up a Christmas tree each year, and it's fun to get an heirloom watch.
However, there just aren't any significant criticisms of digital watches that really hold true any more. I tend to think that unless people prefer analog watches for a particular reason, they're better off with a digital, but neither mechanism is badly flawed for people who just want the time.
May we never see th
Analog watches: I use analog watches exclusively, and it's not because they're easier to read, even though I grew up before digital watches were available. Analog watches are essentially fashion accessories, distinguished from other jewelry only in that they happen to tell time. (This is especially true if you're part of the crowd that buys expensive Rolexes and the like.) For myself, I just prefer a simple, inexpensive, and tasteful analog watch over an ugly black piece of plastic with a primitive multi-segment LCD display that looks like a refugee from the late 70's.
Dot-matrix printers: This is probably lost on folks who came of age after inkjet and laser took over, but I find it a lot easier to read code when it's not interrupted by arbitrary page breaks. I long ago got in the habit of printing out code modules on greenbar paper, marking them up with highlighters and ballpoint notations, and tacking them to the wall. The later 24-pin models are reasonably quiet, perfectly legible, fast, and cheap as hell to operate. Moreover, they last forever, too. I still have and use an Epson dot matrix from 1984, and it works as well as when it was new. And if you want to do multipart forms, you can't use anything else.
And while this wasn't on the list, I have to mention...
Analog film cameras: There are still a lot of things you can't do as well digitally, but even if that were not the case, that's missing the point. Photography is an activity, just like snowboarding or building hotrods. Even if digital was better across the board, a lot of people would still use film cameras, just as a lot of people kept painting after film arrived.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Of course, no technology can ever truly die -- we still use fire and plows, after all. Still, I think if you compare the sales of manual typewriters (~500k/year, according to the article) with the sales of computers, I think you can pretty much pronounce them "mostly dead".
>|<*:=
With a digital clock you have to read the number do the math and then figure out what the resulting number means. That's too much work if your real attention is on something else.
With an analog clock you just note the distance. As that distance gets smaller, so does your time left.. simple as that.
If I have to wake up at a specific time without (or ahead of) an alarm clock, I'll look at the time, convert to analog if necessary (I have a digital watch) and imagine the movement that has to occur between now and when I have to wake up... then I'll go to sleep and wake up at the apointed time.
Dunno why it works. I read it in a (fiction) book once, and tried it. It worked, so I kept it in my bag of tricks.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I am rather glad that a lot of businesses use fax as communication. There isn't a scanner where I work so that route is out.
With a fax:
* I can send in my reciepts for health care reimbursement instantly AND keep the receipts.
* I can sign legally binding medical release forms and get medical documents on their way rather than stopping by the physical office (which may be in another state) or waiting for the mail to deliver forms.
* Faxing is cheaper than a 32 cent stamp in many cases.
* I don't have to worry about our inconsistent mail carrier who decided he didn't have to deliver to us more than once a week as well as kept mail at the office undelivered. He also has continuously misdelivered mail, both for us (my SO and me) and not for us.
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
How about the bicycle? Sure, they get lighter and are equipped with fancier doo-dads all the time, but the basic has remained the same for a century. No other human powered vehicle has come along to challenge it (skateboards and scooters sell but nothing like bicycle numbers)
A human on a bicycle is at least 100 times more efficient than a human walking or running. There are more efficient animals than humans, but few if the human is on a bicycle going about 8mph.
I think it's possible that a human on a good longboard skateboard with large, soft wheels may be even more efficient assuming smooth pavement (though he's not seated so maybe not) but a bicycle is obviously able to handle a wider variety of terrain.
How the hell do you compare a digital watch to an analoug watch. 1. an analoug watch is over a 100's of years old and has stood the test of time. the digital watch is only say 20 years old. 2. a cell ph has the same if not more functions and you dont need that much shit doing the same stuff 3. a anagloug watch has a much more elegant look to it.
I'm a west coast guy, it's late in the day, so nobody will read this anyway, but...
I've read all of the analog vs. digital debate. It's great to see such spirited debate over these simple devices.
This is the way I see it:
So here is my takeaway:
For what it's worth...
I worked as a paramedic (sort of) for one year and never got problems using a digital watch when counting someone's pulse. When you start counting at second 33 you simply stop at second 33, there is no need to count the seconds. The same it goes with fractals of a minute, before you start to count you wait for the next even number, say second 40, and measure when to stop, as for 40 it would be 55 when counting the quarter of a minute. Since when is arithmetics such a big deal?
It really all depends on what you grew up with, and where. Analog more closely represents the "real world". The earth spins, and the shadow of your sundial spins around with it. It's cyclic as well, showing the whole period of sweep for 12 hours.
Digital watches always scream the same time: It's always NOW. NOW, NOW, NOW. There is no sense of future or past inherent in the digital watch. For people who grew up in a time when past events and future possibilities were important enough to receive attention whenever consulting the current time, the digital watch is lacking.
Finally, as an oceangoing navigator, there is something very basic about the analog chronometer that is completely lacking with those little LCD's. 12 Goes into 360 just fine, which can be handy when thinking in terms of time being relative to a circle on the globe. It just isn't as apparent on the digital watch. There are a bunch of short-cuts when figuring out position that just isn't suited for digital. Also, a wind-up chronometer is somewhat less likely to suffer EMP from close lightning.
Actually, I hate to bring this up, but the iMac was really what made USB take off. Before the iMac was released, PC makers had been pushing USB, but peoples' existing devices weren't compatible so they weren't popular and USB devices didn't sell, thus nobody made them. Kind of a chicken-egg problem. Apple comes out with the iMac, where USB is the only peripheral option, and everyone and their mother started making USB products because there was now a real demand for them. When the devices were available for Mac, Windows users started buying them too. The reason Intel doesn't incorporate FireWire on their motherboards is because they don't like paying Apple and Sony royalties for firewire controllers. Besides, they'd rather see high-speed USB 2.0 succeed, because they get to collect royalties from other companies on that. In other words, it's strictly business.
;)
As for PowerPC, yeah, lots of embedded devices use PowerPC-derived chips, including the Nintendo GameCube, countless routers and the TiVo. IBM used to make low-end AIX servers with PowerPCs, but I think they've stopped that. Though, one benefit of Apple being IBM's only PowerPC customer is that IBM will basically custom-build chips for Apple. Microsoft wishes it had that kind of power.
Exactly. I race... I just cannot get into the Tack Tick. There's something about the fluid compass, the motion corresponding with the boat, and the quick and easy ability to figure out tacks and course changes.
I also race cars sometimes... there's a reason analog instruments are preferred. A *very* quick glance down instantly tells you what you need to know, almost without taking your eyes off the track. A pressure driven analog oil gauge can tell you information about the condition of your engine from the motion of the needle, something you wouldn't get from a digital instrument.
There are lots of times that analog is superior.
Larry
The problem with drum machines is their perfection. Human drummers don't hit a perfect rhythm. It's slightly off. Not enough to notice consciously, but more than enough that it makes computerized drumming sound, well, computerized. Also, the mild variations in the exact sound from each drumbeat is something you won't get from a computer either.
The solution is to replace the drums with electronic drum pads and still have a human drumming, or to create drumming "personalities" that distort the sound and rhythm in such a way as to make it sound human. The first approach offers very little benefit (though as the group two loons for tea has shown, it does make it sound very natural), and I doubt the second approach has had much research pumped into it.
Synthesized (or sampled) versions of acoustic instruments somehow always sound different from the real thing, even on recordings or through amplification. On hearing, say, a synthesized/sampled trumpet, I think "hey, that sounds a lot like a trumpet". But it's easy to tell the difference.
Part of the difference may be in the way they're played, and by whom. A guitarist is going to play differently, inc. different notes, than a keyboardist imitating a guitar.
But a bigger part of the difference is probably the fact that the sampled/synthesized sounds don't really capture the original sound. The original attack is probably more complicated and variable (note to note). Acoustic instruments also have very different tone color from pitch to pitch (or note to note), either intentionally or because of the way the instrument is constructed.
I don't think the synthesized/sampled versions of instruments like pianos and guitars take into account the slight ringing of other notes when one note is played.
Why would one want to bring a rechargeable battery to RadioShack for recycling? You know that you can just recharge them?