Slashdot Mirror
10 Technologies MIA
Fantasy Football writes "CNet lists ten technologies they miss, which includes Napster, the originial Palm Pilot, good keyboards, and more. From the article: 'Technology evolves. Good technologies and products usually survive; poor ones usually go extinct. But not all of the technologies and tech products that have swirled down the drain of the tech gene pool deserved their fate. Here are some big, and some small, ideas that we thought we'd have with us forever, but that unfortunately have gone the way of the dodo.'"
there buisness model was fatally flawed, they didnt make any proffit because they basically sold everything at what it cost them, and didnt charge shipping.
Microsoft BOB
*Sniff*
Reminds me of another popular news site...
:)
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
Space is essentially the only frontier we have left, and I think humanity needs a frontier. The Earth is fully populated now, in the sense that only the very remotest regions remain unexplored and all regions are claimed.
:-(.
Practical is good and all, but if we wait until we solve all our problems here on Earth first we'll be stuck on this dirtball until the sun hits Red Giant phase. Human nature being what it is.
I say Let's Get Out There! Now! It pushes limits, it's positive, and it pushes technology. Sounds good to me! May China can provoke another space race - I sure hope so. One-upmanship seems to be the only real way to get any serious funding
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Uh, that's what it says in the article.
Sorry, I'm new here. Are we supposed to read it?
1. Manned Space Exploration
Well, I agree that reestablishing travel to the moon and beyond is important, the International Space Station is an important stepping stone that deserves focus. The reason I think so is that I truly believe it's going to take a multinational effort to get to Mars and back.
2. Kozmo.com
Make up your mind, CNET, technology you miss, or giant flop. I suppose it could be both, but even if Kozmo had stayed in business, it could never compete with my neighborhood grocery store.
3. Napster
Any opinion I might express about this would likely start a flame war, so I'll leave this one alone.
4. Concorde
You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?
5. GM's EV1
Zero Emission Vehicle. ROFLMAO. Zero-emission as long as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard. Sure, I suppose the power could have been photoelectric or wind produced, but if you believe no harm to the earth was done in the process of manufacturing those systems, you're clueless. (Hint: Strip mining for metals, processing ore, smelting, doping chemicals for solar, etc). Not that I have a problem with any of the above, but let's be realistic here. There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".
6. The Original Palm Pilot
I don't know. My Zire 31 does everything the original did, plus color and MP3s. I've been eying the Tungsten E2 as an upgrade. Only third party apps have ever crashed it, and that's only twice after over a year of use. The Palm-supplied apps have been rock solid. A lot like the original Palm Pilot.
7. Good Keyboards
Agreed.
8. Wires
You miss wires? Uh, you made the choice to go wireless. If you truly miss wires, just switch back, right? It's not like your old phone company disappeared, and you can't buy ethernet cables. Oh wait... the convenience outweighs the disadvantages of wireless you point to. I guess you don't really miss wires after all.
9. LPs
My wife is an archaeologist. She's told me about digging these up.
10. The Newton
The Newton was good for a laugh, but it was also a good lesson for future manufacturers of PDAs. Without Apple's failure, would we really have seen Palm's success?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
... as in:
* Spamless Internet
* Virusless Internet
* Popupless Internet
* Bannerless Internet
* etcless Internet
Of course that the net has evolved, and a lot, but sometimes one miss those old days when your mail were mail, when browsing pages retrieved almost only the content you wanted, and even the pages were really static, without things popping up, moving, blinking or weighting far more than the useful content of what you really want to read.
Yeah, CNET is having a top 10 celebration for its 10th aniversary... can we just point everyone to it rather than having to make each one a new article!?
a g=bottom
http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6250162-1.html?t
Try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched LP.
Then try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched CD.
The first will be tolerable, the second will drive you to murder.
I have a lot of nostalgia for vinyl - partly because you did have to care for the discs, which meant the pop stars you worshiped as a teenager had their own little audio shrine in your house, but mostly because you got at least 2 square feet of artwork on the sleeves. A band can't fit much of an 'image' on a CD inlay, so image-building has to be done by video, which places too much emphasis on the looks of the perfomers. Ulgy musicians can't be effortlessly cool anymore.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
You see when you're listening to a digital CD the sound comes out all like _|-|_|-|_|-|_ and it sounds terrible, but if you're listening to an analogue LP the sound is all like v^v^v^u^v^U^wooooOOOooo000ooo. So basically the sound quality is smoother and easier from an LP, and it's got all those extra harmonics and sounds, which come free! I mean, you don't get any pops and crackles on CD, and those give the music all their character. The beatles sound sterile and dead without the pops and crackles. I think we need to invest some serious research $$$ in a portable LP player, that you can use like an iPod, I mean, an iPod has what, 40Gb of storage, that's about 4000 minutes... So if you had some kind of barrel, with 40 LPs in it, and a player, and some gyroscopes, you could have that great L:P quality wherever you run. And you'll get fitter faster.
But, anyway, back to my point. For things to sound good, you need an LP, some really thick cables, a gold plated power supply, some of those special bricks which go on top of cables, and a whole bunch of tetrodes & pentodes. Also, once, I saw the beatles in concert, they sucked - they were nothing like they are on an LP - I mean, between the lot of them they couldn't make a single crackle or pop, and they didn't skip once!!!! Where's the warmth?!?!?! Remember, it's w000oo000OOO000oooo))oo which is great not 101010101010101010111 all those ones sound terrible.
Absolute codswallop, "thousands of dollars of precision equipment".
For 200 quid (GBP) you can buy a decent turntable and probably a good stylus as well.
Adjust your stylus and keep your records clean (the first should be easy for the average geek, the second might be slightly harder) and fidelity is superior to anything digital (and that includes the new high-end digital formats like DVD-audio according to tests in Hi-Fi Choice).
There are things on "Dark Side of the Moon" LP (analog recording!) which I cannot even hear on my CD copy ... The only thing CDs do better is reproducing silence (a bunch of zeros is not that hard to do), but when it comes to producing sound analog is still the best. Don't mistake abscence of crackles for great sound ...
I am sick of people who listen to their music through computer speakers and tinny MP3 players having opinions about analog.
If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.
"The point of my post was that the earth has limited resources and therefore cannot support the current or future world population at a standard of living that is acceptable."
Ok, I'll bite. _Which_ resources doesn't it have enough to sustain an 8 billion population? Because it produces currently a surplus of food, has enough uranium for centuries, has iron under almost literally every hill or mountain, and it can synthetize fuel and plastics from any other source of energy (e.g., nuclear.) So _what_ materials do you absolutely need to bring from the moon?
"For $20 billion the US could build a sustainable manned moon colony which could send down unthinkably large amounts of resources."
"Unthinkably large" sounds cool, but:
A) Exactly how much _is_ "unthinkably large"? More than the exact same money (including, salaries, supplies, shipping, etc) would get you from a mine on Earth? Enough to not be lost in the decimals, compared to what millions of people already extract on Earth?
B) What's the price per ton to transport it, and to transport supplies back? There's a good reason why you get raw materials or oil imported by train or ship, not by airplane: cost per ton transported.
"Of course, next you're gunna claim there are no resources on the moon and that the only way forward is to huddle in the dark as we use up all the resources on earth."
Actually, next I'm gonna claim you need to read a book on economics. Might be a fascinating read.
The question isn't just whether there are resources on the Moon worth getting, but whether it's cheaper to get them from there. That's how the economy still works here on Earth, I'm affraid.
There's a lot of "plan B"s out there, that are perfectly feasible, but aren't done because "plan A" is still cheaper. E.g., why the USA prefers to import oil than to extract its own. Or for that matter than to synthesize it from coal, or to switch to hydrogen cars and nuclear power to produce the hydrogen, or whatever.
If 20 billion USD was all it takes to bring a lot of cheap resources from the moon, that is, cheaper than you can get them on Earth, some corporation would already do that.
But maybe we'll do something else first. Yours is not the only solution, but just one possible "plan B" in a list of _thousands_. Humanity has a _lot_ of already existing options before huddling in the dark or mass-murder, and more are already being researched. (Of course, it makes a better doomsday whine if you ignore them.)
Which of them will be used next and when, will have to do with economics, not with what looks way cool to SF fanboys. _Maybe_ some day bringing iron ore from the moon will be cheaper than digging it from under a mountain on Earth. But maybe we'll just use plastics and composite materials produced with fusion power instead. Or maybe something else.
When one such "plan B" becomes cheaper, or the current "plan A" becomes too expensive, we will know it, and do it then. That's how the economy works.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.
And if you think "fidelity" is what music appreciation is about then you need to have your brain checked.
Play me a good song, and I won't care whether it's a 96kbps MP3 stream or pristine vinyl on a $2000 turntable -- I'm going to enjoy it. Likewise, play me a bad song and I'm NOT going to enjoy it, irregardless of "fidelity".