Innovation's Role Is Sorely Exaggerated

Strudelkugel writes "The New Yorker has a book review describing our common misunderstanding of the value of technology and its ultimate uses. The reviewer notes that the way we think about technology tends to ignore older objects of technology. Quoting: '[W]hen we do consider technology in historical terms we customarily see it as a driving force of progress: every so often... an innovation — the steam engine, electricity, computers — brings a new age into being. In "The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900", by David Edgerton, a well-known British historian of modern military and industrial technology, offers a vigorous assault on this narrative. He thinks that traditional ways of understanding technology, technological change, and the role of technology in our lives, have been severely distorted by what he calls "the innovation-centric account" of technology.'" Money quote: "Seen in this light, my kitchen is a technological palimpsest."

Comments

Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

Reading the effing article, his point seems to be that we overstate the impact of new technology, seeing as we still use mostly old technology, even after the new technology has supposedly "changed our lives forever".

He throws up a bunch of examples, like the fact that the army is still using horses in Afganistan, because they're efficient. And that "huge" innovations, like the V-2 rocket in WWII weren't as pivotal as people think they were (no mention of, you know, the tank).

Basically, he's saying that what people view as life-changing technology isn't always...That the real world changing technology isn't always something that is obvious at the time.

Basically, I think he's full of it. Sure, we often don't recognize the significance of certain innovations which end up shaping our whole world. And then there are things like the cell phone, the internal combustion engine, and the personal computer...Technologies which actually are as influential as we think they are.

Sure there are times where we jam high tech where it doesn't belong, and there are past innovations which are just as valuable today as they were decades ago. But that doesn't immediately invalidate our perception of technology as a driver of change. He talks about the pneumatic tube mail system they used to have in the big cities, and how people thought it was a great thing, and how it's now a non-thing...The thing is that system served a need, and was superceded by better technologies that allowed society to fulfill that need in a more meaningful way.

So society drives technological innovation, yes, but it absolutely depends on the right innovation coming along at the right time, and there is a certain amount of serendipity in that.

Re:Hmmmm.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Basically, I think he's full of it. It's the New Yorker. What do you expect?

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

I like the New Yorker...On occasion. Their movie reviews are almost perfect: if they love it, I'll hate it, and if they hate it, it's probably worth watching.

But they're about the last people I'd trust on a technological issue. The article reminded me of the "Luddite" column from Wired.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Canthros]

The tank first saw use in the Battle of the Sommes in WWI, which is why, despite being very important, it's not actually an innovation of WWII.

Sorry, nothing to offer except nitpicking just now!

Re:Hmmmm.

[MontyApollo]

I thought I have heard statements that if the war had lasted just 6 months longer then the V-2s could have changed the face of the war. The Germans put all their money into the V-2s because they thought they would have already won the war by the time the A-bomb was ready and thought the V-2 would be of some use before then. The A-bomb's effect on WWII is arguable, but it (and ICBMs sprung from the V-2 program) was responsible for the Cold War. That seems like a pretty major impact on society.

I just scanned the article but it seemed kind of rambling without much point other than technology is not as important as we think it is. Or something like that.

I think the more interesting part of technology is how once it began to utilize science is when things really took off. The whole technological revolution that occurred over the last century or so is due in large part to its adaptation to science.

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

Wellllll, I agree and disagree. You're right about when they were introduced, but the tanks of WWI weren't the tanks of WWII. In WWI the role of the tank was basically to provide light fire support, and a slow moving wall for soldiers to walk behind while it crossed the land between the trenches.

Not that that wasn't absolutely huge, because it was, but it wasn't anywhere near as decisive as the role of the tank in WWII. Tanks and airplanes were the big winners as far as military tech in WWII; they'd both been introduced in WWI, but they really achieved their potential in WWII.

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

Nah, the V-2 was crap. He's right about that. Strategic bombing was much more damaging and accurate; the V-2 was primarily a terror weapon--just an explosion out of nowhere on a clear day, and then after it blew up, the sound of it's passage would catch up and you could hear it coming in.

Freaked a lot of people out, but didn't do all that much damage. Couldn't be aimed accurately enough to take out a strategic target. There is some debate on how worthwhile strategic bombing was in general, but the V-2 especially was much less worthwhile as an innovation than the late planes and subs that the Germans were capable of producing; subs that could run underwater the whole way, and the first true jet aircraft.

Compared to that, the ability to toss a bomb across the Channel is small potatoes.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Cadallin]

However, despite that early use in WWI, it was not until WWII, and Germany's use of blitzkrieg tactics, that the tank would radically revolutionize warfare. That time was necessary for military theory to catch up to the tank's true implications for warfare. And while the V-2 rocket would utterly fail to save Germany in WWII, its descendants would be (and still are) critical in the development of the Cold War, and remain dominant in modern warfare.

One of the things that amazes me is that Robert Heinlein, admittedly like so many others of his time, completely failed to see the implications of the modern computer. His view of the computer was consistently that of a better sliderule. Although, I'm somewhat ignoring his ideas of Computer intelligence here, which arose by the end of the 50's. He was still imagining computers solely as massive installations, existing solely for special purpose uses, or as master control systems. Despite the fact that he was so prescient in so many others ways. And he was in the Navy, one of the first places to see widespread deployment of mechanical computers, although admitted these were not General Purpose and were for the calculation of ballistic trajectories for long range gunfire. He foresaw the profound impact of Computer Aided Design in Drafting, although he imagined it as a special purpose device, rather than an application of a general purpose computer. It wasn't really until the 1980's when visionaries really started to get a grasp on what the computer really meant.

Re:Hmmmm.

[speaker of the truth]

By his logic electricity isn't important because people still use candles (to see by) and fire (to cook with).

Re:Hmmmm.

[drinkypoo]

I haven't RTFA (too early for that) but I find this kind of attitude (discounting technological progress) is most common among closet luddites who have no fucking idea how much technology they depend on every day. And the ultimate irony is your article about how old technology transforms us more than new being on the internet, which is a very modern invention, which continues to be transformed by new inventions, and so on. We wouldn't even be reading his sour grapes bullshit if not for modern technology! Er, not that I am reading it :)

Re:Hmmmm.

[skorch]

I think you've missed the point, and if it isn't the point in the article then it is a point that needs to be made nonetheless: It is not that innovation is irrelevant, it is that it is over-estimated and in some ways overrated. In the vast majority of cases of technological advancement we are seeing evolutionary iterations of and novel recombinations of existing technology, creating improved efficiencies within systems and synergies between previously isolated systems. The amount of completely novel technology that gets produced is extremely low, and yet nearly all the attention is paid to the pursuit of "innovation" (which I don't believe is necessarily a bad thing, but it should not be done to the exclusion of all other technological pursuits), when in most cases, the most useful advancements have come from rethinking how we can use or how we can improve what we already have.

Taking your examples, let's call PC's a true innovation (even though they owe greatly to the development of the large mainframe computer systems that preceded them). Laptops were not really innovations in the sense you use it, they were largely iterations of PC's that were re-imagined and re-designed for mobile use. You won't find any tech in a laptop that you won't find in most PC's, but the experience and utility of the device is very different because of the mobility it affords the user. Blackberries and smart phones aren't really so much completely novel tech, so much as combinations of existing communications technology iterated (basically breed a cell phone with a laptop and streamline the tech involved it for use).

For every true innovation, there are generations upon generations of iterations on that innovation that evolve the technology, and it is that iterative process where the bulk of technological advancement is made. True innovations are few and far between, and their importance in providing us with new avenues of progress to pursue is extremely important. However, one must not forget or ignore the importance of the iteration, which often seems to be the case.

To clarify, the terminology may be confusing. I believe innovation can refer to the iterative process of using existing tech to create a novel experience, but I don't believe that is the type of "innovation" that this article is talking about. I may be mistaken but I believe in the context of this article, innovation is referring solely to the development of completely novel technology.

Re:Hmmmm.

[White Yeti]

I'm reminded of the TV series by James Burke. They really affected my young and impressionable mind. His various shows celebrated both the serendipitous and the slow-building contributions of knowledge and technology that led to modern things and thoughts. I can still picture the chains of wooden "punch cards" controlling the weaving pattern of a water (maybe steam?) powered loom, and the "Connections" between so many old and new things. If you can find them, his "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed" series are great.

I think it boils down to a lack of history. We learn history for the first 20 or so years of our lives, we live/make history for another 50 years, and we try to teach OUR history to the young'uns for our last 10 or 20 years. How would the world be different if we all lived 200 years? The gap of generational knowledge would be longer, but would still exist. We'd still be left with "When I was a kid, 190 years ago, all we had were internal combustion engines. And we LIKED 'em!"

Re:Hmmmm.

[altoz]

I think his point is that there's a lot of new technologies all the time that don't fulfill their hype. The V-2 is a good example in that during the war, it was thought as the magic weapon that would wipe out the enemy. It's not that there aren't technologies that do deserve the hype, but that the technologies that inevitably end up changing our lives aren't necessarily the ones that did. He also makes a point that innovation isn't necessarily unique. Basically, that had email not been invented, there might be something just as efficient that would have been made. Since this author believes that the same things get invented regardless (albeit with different parameters), attaching such importance to the innovation is therefore not as warranted.

Some examples of hyped technologies right now:

stem cells
quantum computing
nano-tech
anything fusion related

Are any of these going to change our lives the way they're hyped to be? Perhaps, but there's a good chance that something else from left field will do much better at the same things these technologies promise to do.

Of course, speculating on such things is mostly futile since we can't know a world that would have been (at least without some weird quantum technology). We only know the world that is. Thus, I don't know if saying that innovation is important is unwarranted. However, this article does point out that our placing so much importance on innovation is also unwarranted.

Re:Hmmmm.

[AP2k]

Lets see: tank or gyro-stabilized ICBM. tank or ICBM.... I'm going to have to go with the ICBM, Bob.

Tanks arent that much of a leap forward over the armored car. It was just an armored car that had tracks, a big gun, and most tanks of WW2 had little armor. On the other hand, you have a state-of-the-art missile that can touch down in another country, and, after launch, was completely invincible.

Re:Hmmmm.

[XxtraLarGe]

I haven't RTFA There's the problem right there. The article isn't about being a Luddite at all. It's about how pervasive "old" technologies are in our lives, and how we don't even recognize them as such. All-in-all, it was a pretty good read, and something one may have stumbled across if they picked up one of those old fashioned magazines ;-)

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

We're not talking ICBMs, we're talking the V-2, which was BM sure, but IC? No way! They're bombing London, not New York. Between Tanks and V-2 rockets, which one did more damage in WW2? The V-2 was basically just a really really expensive way to take a bomb that could have been dropped from a plane, and put it on the ground less accurately.

Hell, between tanks and ICBMs, which one has done more damage in the entire history of warfare? Hell, the ICBM and the fricking bow and arrow! ICBMs are such a powerful weapon that they're never actually used; in other words, so powerful that they're useless.

Re:Hmmmm.

[shilly]

Your argument only holds water if you ignore what he wrote after the 50's, which seems a bit of an odd way of looking at his work.

In Expanded Universe, Heinlein speculates that the computer chip would revolutionise the world. In the Number of the Beast, Friday, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and other novels, computers are central to the story. Friday has something that sounds quite similar to an intranet.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Elemenope]

Hell, between tanks and ICBMs, which one has done more damage in the entire history of warfare? Hell, the ICBM and the fricking bow and arrow! ICBMs are such a powerful weapon that they're never actually used; in other words, so powerful that they're useless.

That assumes something which is very obviously untrue, which is that war is an end in itself. If dead bodies were the point, then you could make an analysis of weapons of war by their bodycounts. However, war is usually an extention of politics, and as such, ICBMs, even though they've never killed a soul, have served the metapurposes of politics to which war is in service. ICBMs, and the nuclear weapons with which they have been coupled, are weapons of war that serve the purposes of politics with an unimaginably large impact. To call them useless, knowing that, is absurd.

Re:Hmmmm.

[fishbowl]

"The V-2 was basically just a really really expensive way to take a bomb that could have been dropped from a plane, and put it on the ground less accurately."

Of course, supersonic planes were yet to come. To talk about accuracy of the V-2 is meaningless with nothing to compare it to, except later rocket designs maybe. The idea that they were laughably inaccurate seems to come from the fact that many V-2s landed in the rural Eastern side of London -- but it is now known that this wasn't the result of poor guidance, but rather, because of British countermeasures. The bombs were accurately hitting their targets, but the targets themselves were chosen as the result of a disinformation campaign. This required citizens to keep their mouths shut. In today's world, I wonder if that could be done (e.g., why do we KNOW that Humvees have poor armor, or that soldiers in Iraq lack bullet proof vests? That's "loose lips sink ships" territory, as far as I'm concerned.)

Anyway, the real impact of the V-2 was in the fact that you saw the fire before you heard the missile.

So basically, you'd see a flame and/or smoke, then hear a loud boom, and THEN hear the streaking-through-the-sky sound of the rocket.

As for the most deadly military technology? I'd ask you to consider *charcoal*. And if Hannibal had had MRE's, he could have held Rome.

Re:Hmmmm.

[teh_chrizzle]

He throws up a bunch of examples, like the fact that the army is still using horses in Afganistan, because they're efficient.

how about the simple fact that a given new technology doesn't automatically eliminate the old one?

as soon as the first ford model T rolled off the assembly line, we didn't start killing off horses in droves. the radio is still here inspite of the television, people still handwrite despite the invention of the printing press, the typewriter, and the computer. the book is probably the best example of a technology that will probably never die.

And that "huge" innovations, like the V-2 rocket in WWII weren't as pivotal as people think they were (no mention of, you know, the tank).

yes, no mention of the tank, and also, no mention of the role that computers and cryptography played either.

Re:Hmmmm.

[DarenN]

Good points.

I personally believe the problem with "innovation" today is that it's marketing - rather than something genuine. Every product, from Bounty kitchen rolls to the latest TV to make-up is "innovative" and "futuristic" and will "change your life forever".

Amazingly, none of them do. Many of the significant innovations are less tangible - the tank is a product built on the application of innovations such as the internal combustion engine, electricity (for factories), mechanised metalworking machines, and, perhaps most importantly, product line engineering. Products generally aren't innovations, although they can be innovative (a minor distinction, I'm aware, but important enough).

Anyway, the thing is that world-changing innovation is relatively rare, and take time to catch on (eg, electricity or computing), and products based on known principles are not innovations, they're innovative. It's different. Think about it.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Cadallin]

Friday, written in 1982, is really the only book that portrays computers as widespread multi functional tools. And it was written pretty well into the beginning of the home computer revolution. The Apple II was released in 1977, the Commodore 64 the same year Friday was published. In "The Moon is A Harsh Mistress," Mike is a vast underground complex of mainframes. It is only because he is interfaced to, and the switching system of, the Moon's telephone and communications systems that he accessible anywhere, and only then because he is sentient. The vision of Mike in the novel is consistent with a supersized ENIAC, that becomes sentient. Heinlein clearly subscribed to the view that intelligence is an emergent property of sufficiently complex information processing systems. While in his late work particularly, he perceives that computers will become extremely important as general tools, it is still in a vague and largely unspecified way. But that is true of essentially everyone from his era, nobody in their 60's in 1970 had the remotest idea about what the year 2000 would truly look like, which we only know in hindsight.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Elemenope]

But by then, computers already had changed the world; Friday was published in the mid '80s, and by then, it took only a minimum level of perception to realize that the then-growing personal computer industry was not going to stop growing; much of what would become the WWW was already departing from blueprints and becoming reality. Same thing, to a slightly lesser extent, with NotB (1980), when contemporaenously there was obvious practical innovation in personal computing, and the Apple II was right around the corner. The other you mentioned (MHM) falls to the basic complaint that GP made, that computers in Heinlein's worlds were special purpose installations (in MHM, a giant AI mainframe colony manager) and not PCs in any sense.

This is not to pooh on Heinlein; he's one of my favorite authors. Only, I think GP's criticism about a lacuna in Heinlein's vision regarding computers is on-point.

Re:Hmmmm.

[LandKurt]

So society drives technological innovation, yes, but it absolutely depends on the right innovation coming along at the right time, and there is a certain amount of serendipity in that.

I have to disagree with you there, as I'm sure the author of the article would. Nothing depends on the "right" innovation coming along. Our technological society is an amalgam or whichever innovations came along and fit reasonably well together. This is not the best of all possible technological worlds, it's just good enough to make do. I think this is exactly what the author is getting at: no need to worship the latest break through gadget, it's not as important as you think it is.

He mentioned pneumatic delivery tubes and postulated an alternative technological path where they caught on completely and packages zipped across the city in moments. That's quite imaginable and would be pretty handy, but not as indispensable as some of it's users would no doubt claim it to be.

Re:Hmmmm.

[DigitalSorceress]

Yes, the V2 is an excellent example... I was surprised the article didn't mention how this supposed weapon that would wipe out the enemy DID end up changing the world in a way that nobody of the time could have forseen. Least you forget that America went to the moon on rockets that were direct decendants of the V2 and that were designed & built by many of Germany's former V2 scientists.

(ok, going to the moon didn't directly lead to a transformation of the human race, but it a) showed us that we COULD get off this big old rock (wich may eventually pave the way for humanity to survive cosmological-level disasters in the far distant future) and b) indrectly or directly led to hundreds upon hundreds of innovations, inventions, improvements, and societal adaptations thereof.

* Digital Image Processing
* Image Enhancement
* Space vehicle launching (Leading to financial feasability of sattelites for science and commerce)
* Photovoltaic Solar systems
* Chordless tools
* Practical applications of Teflon
* Architectural fabrics (moon-suit tech transposed to use as roofs for sports stadiums and other large public spaces)
* Jaws of Life (Apparently, some newer more portable types use Nasa Explosive Bolt tech for times when the power equipment cant reach)
* Freeze-drying for food and scientific uses

etc...

Re:Hmmmm.

[theStorminMormon]

Basically, I think he's full of it.

I agree. It seems as though he's just gunning to be the next non-fiction super-star like "Blink", "Tipping Point" or "Guns, Germs, and Steel", but he has to completely destroy his credibility to make any substantial claims.

Consider his dismissal of the impact on technology in first world countries:

It is said that we live in a "new economy," yet, of the world's top thirty companies (by revenue), only three are mainly in the business of high tech--General Electric (No. 11), Siemens (No. 22), and I.B.M. (No. 29)--and all three go back more than a century. The heights of the early-twenty-first-century corporate world are still occupied--as they have long been--by petroleum companies (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and B.P., Nos. 1, 3, and 4), retailing (Wal-Mart, No. 2), automobiles (General Motors, No. 5), and finance (I.N.G. and Citigroup, Nos. 13 and 14). No Hewlett-Packard (No. 33); no Microsoft (No. 140); no Merck (No. 289).

First of all, what does the age of a company have to do with the age of the technology it employs? Second of all, how does he imagine that petroleum companies, retailing, automobiles, and finance are not high-tech? We may still be making cars that use internal combustion, but thinks like braking-assist aren't exactly 19th century technology. The financial sector is not the same financial sector that existed before computers (day-trading, anyone?, or how about computer glitches at major stock exchanges? or credit cards?) and even retailing and petroleum make extensive use of modern technology (inventory control, for example, or new methods of exploring for new oil reserves). This entire point seems utterly fallacious.

His treatment of technology in WW2 seems equally questionable:

When we think about the technologies that figured large in it, what comes to mind? Perhaps Germany's V-2 terror weapons, with their emblematic role in Thomas Pynchon's "A screaming comes across the sky." Or the triumph of theoretical physics and metallurgical engineering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Edgerton offers an arrestingly different perspective, calling German investment in the V-2 project "economically and militarily irrational." One historian wrote that "more people died producing it than died from being hit by it." Edgerton estimates that although the Germans spent five hundred million dollars on the project, "the destructive power of all the V-2s produced amounted to less than could be achieved by a single raid on a city by the RAF." Similarly, considering the cost of the atomic bomb against the conventional weaponry that could have been bought for the same money, "it is not difficult to imagine what thousands more B-29s, one-third more tanks or five times more artillery, or some other military output, would have done to Allied fighting power."

Measuring the impact of bombing in dollars doesn't make sense. The fact that 50 years later we still remember the V-2 rocket shows that it had an impact on the war out of proportion with it's dollar-contribution to destruction. War is not merely a game where you can keep score in terms of dollar value of lost infrastructure - psychology is essential. That is what explains both the attraction of the V2 rocket and the power of the atomic bomb. The fact that it only took one B-29 to level Hiroshima and Nagasaki makes it a fundamentally more powerful weapon than a fleet of B-29s with a conventional payload. The V2 rocket had much the same goal: to inflict damage upon the enemy at will without parallel risk to your own forces. And really, 5-times more artillery are supposed to be as powerful as an atomic bomb? I don't see the Cold War shaping the next 5-decades of history because American shipped over 500% more howitzers than was strictly necessary and now there's a great arms race between the US and the USSR to see who can point more conventional howitzers at the other.

It seems obvious that Edgerton's goal is to try and incit wonder and amazement whe

Re:Hmmmm.

[nomadic]

Your argument only holds water if you ignore what he wrote after the 50's, which seems a bit of an odd way of looking at his work.

Hmmm, frequently when I've badmouthed Heinlein, his fans have suggested exactly that; that I ignore what he wrote after the 50's.

Re:Hmmmm.

[bkr1_2k]

Perhaps less worthwhile for that particular war, but certainly it drove some pretty important stuff, like the race to the moon. And modern missile guidance systems started somewhere. It's pretty shallow to discount the V-2 because it wasn't particularly effective at it's most obvious design justification. Of course, there are some who believe the whole intent of the V2 was the terror it created.

Re:Hmmmm.

[l4m3z0r]

And then there are things like the cell phone, the internal combustion engine, and the personal computer...Technologies which actually are as influential as we think they are. ... Sure there are times where we jam high tech where it doesn't belong...

Let me put forth an opinion that I know will be universally rejected here on slastdot, and keep in mind that I am a computer programmer.

Computers have not nearly been as revolutionary as people claim they are. In fact they more often than not are a detriment to an already efficient system. Take for instance schools, computers do no improve education, one could argue that they have inhibited it now that plagarism is becoming increasingly more common(lots of services online to find a pre written paper on a given topic). Where computers have been revolutionary is in fields where automation improves efficiency, and I'd argue that computers are'nt the real innovation there, the real innovation is the melding of machines and computers to create robots.

I'd argue that your tank is overstatement as well, military aviation did produce revolution, it dismantled the traditional notions of a Navy. The tank is just field artillery with armor tacked on, a progression of an earlier concept no great leap in technology.

Re:Hmmmm.

[martyros]

For a business class I took recently, I had to read an article from the Harvard Business Review written in 1969. The strange thing about the article was that it talked about fuel cells as a potential replacement for gasoline which was "just around the corner". I had to keep going back and checking that it really was written in 1969 and never revised.

So some of the hyped technologies *right now* have been hyped before.

One of the other interesting things about this class is the way it defines innovation: not as a development of new technology, but as the practical application of technology to people's lives (and more particularly, the creation of new business: either new products, new servies, or new ways of doing things). Peter Drucker identified seven sources of this kind of "innovation", of which new technology was only one.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Aelcyx]

As if the money, time, and energy expended therein was used to its fullest potential. The number of hurdles humanity will have to leap over within this century on Earth is astounding and from that standpoint, trips to the moon are only useful for gathering up helium-3. In this scientist's opinion, extolling the side-benefits of bloated government expenditures toward defense and space (aside from communication satellites) is akin to saying how your house being flooded helped water your plants.

"Radical simply means 'grasping things at the root.'"

Re:Hmmmm.

[Weedlekin]

" the tanks of WWI weren't the tanks of WWII"

I presume you're thinking of "lozenge" tanks such as the British Mk. 4 with side-mounted guns. These were specifically designed to cross trenches and large shell craters, and are still the finest vehicles ever made for that particular role, being capable of traversing terrain and climbing vertical obstacles that would immobilise a modern tank, despite having 100 HP engines that gave them a power to weight ratio of only 3 HP/ton. Early designs had a turret, but this was discarded in production models for the side-mounted gunnery because it allowed "female" (machine-gun carrying) tanks to fire downwards into a trench while crossing it, while providing "male" (cannon equipped) variants to engage two separate targets simultaneously.

Not all WW1 tanks were lozenges, and some looked quite a bit like early WWII designs, e.g. the Renault FT-17 with its rotating turret and tracks that lie under its body instead of going over the top. Over 4700 of these were built, and the US army bought a fair number of them -- about 2,500 were still in service in France in 1940, and actually scored several kills against German tanks (which were mostly lightly armoured Pzkfw 1 & 2 types in 1940).

"In WWI the role of the tank was basically to provide light fire support, and a slow moving wall for soldiers to walk behind while it crossed the land between the trenches."

This is just plain wrong. British tanks at The Somme and Cambrai were used to storm enemy lines, in both cases with considerable success, although only 49 were used a The Somme itself. At Cambrai, an attack planned by the visionary J.F.C. Fuller smashed through the previously impenetrable Hindenburg Line to a depth of five miles, the biggest single territory gain in the entire land war. Fuller's plan was in most respects classic Blitzkrieg, using mixed tank and infantry formations with air and artillery support (combined arms) that simply bypassed heavily contested positions, the idea being that the could later be mopped up after the fast-moving front had cut their supply lines. Unfortunately for Fuller, the British in typical fashion completely failed to exploit the opening that he'd made.

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

...there are some who believe the whole intent of the V2 was the terror it created.

And I am one of those people. World War II was, above all other things, the first test of WMDs on civilian populations, whether it was the V-2, incendiary bombs, nukes, or just conventional drop-a-ton-of-TNT-on-yer-house. Looking at Tokyo after the firebombing, a nuke would have been redundant. Then there is London, Dresden, Warsaw...They bombed a lot of cities, and while the stated goal was often strategic (e.g. destroying factories), the reality is, you don't drop incendiaries in the middle of town if all you're after is a factory.

The truth of it is though, that, in most cases, burning up a town just stiffened the resolve of the people to resist. The conventional wisdom was that the civilians would panic and force the government to surrender, and not once did that happen. Quite the opposite. You drop a bomb on someone's house and kill half their family, and they're likely to strap a bomb to their body, and try and give you a hug. Look at England during the Blitz; that's pretty much the opposite of giving up.

Japan is the obvious counter-example, though I'd argue it is a bad one. By the time we used nukes, the war was well over...This is not to say that the Japanese weren't ready to fight to the death (they were absolutely willing to do so), but rather that everyone involved knew how it was going to end, and that there was no possibility for it to end any other way. The only question was, how many people were going to die on each side?

Re:Hmmmm.

[Weedlekin]

"However, despite that early use in WWI, it was not until WWII, and Germany's use of blitzkrieg tactics, that the tank would radically revolutionize warfare."

Heinz Guderian, the father of Blitzkrieg, credited J.F.C. Fuller and Liddel Hart as the originators of the theories behind it. Fuller had already used Blitzkrieg-like tactics at the Battle Of Cambrai in 1917, and the British pursuit of retreating Germans during late 1918 began to look very much like it indeed, with rapidly advancing tanks being supported by troops in a growing number of armoured personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft, all of which the Germans fought desperate rear-guard actions to stop. The war ended before Fuller's 1919 plan for a fully mechanised army could be realised, but his post-war writings about it and the strategic and tactical advantages it could offer would ironically end up inspiring a new generation of German theorists, while both the British and French military authorities decided to build armies that were beautifully suited to fighting a static trench war. As is often the case in military history, the losing side ends up learning a whole lot more from the experience than the winners, who have a propensity to use the last war as a basis for planning the next one.

The tactics of Blitzkrieg were thus not only already in place during WW1, but actively being used, albeit in a piecemeal fashion by a few visionaries who received little support (and in some cases outright opposition) from people higher up the command ladder. Hitler acknowledge this by inviting Fuller to his birthday party in 1939, where he said "How do you like your children?" while they both watched Germany's mechanised army and airforce parading past them.

"That time was necessary for military theory to catch up to the tank's true implications for warfare"

It was actually more a case of technology having made Blitzkrieg practical in a way that it hadn't been during WW1. Technology in 1918 was more or less up to the job of attacking fixed positions from other fixed positions that were a few miles away, but tanks which can only move at walking pace, have a 1 in three chance of breaking down every five miles, and eat so much fuel that they can only carry enough to go 20 miles wouldn't have been very useful for invading another country, and the aircraft of the time were also severely limited by their engines in speed, range, ceiling, and the amount of ordnance they could carry.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Gorshkov]

He throws up a bunch of examples, like the fact that the army is still using horses in Afganistan, because they're efficient. And that "huge" innovations, like the V-2 rocket in WWII weren't as pivotal as people think they were (no mention of, you know, the tank).

..... which was used in World War I. It's wasn't the tank per se that had the impact in WWII (although the massivly more powerful engines, guns & armor made a massive difference in their *practicality*, they were still basically the same beasties used 30 years earlier), but it was the development of tactics that allowed them to be used more effectivly than the "trundle along with the pongos and give them some supporting fire" type of thinking.

And then there are things like the cell phone, the internal combustion engine, and the personal computer...Technologies which actually are as influential as we think they are.

Both the cell phone and the PC are perfect examples, I think, to illustrate the points he was making - and they're at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The development of the PC has had a massive effect - in business, and in personal lives. It allowed people to do things they've never been able to do before. that was a major, MAJOR shift that's literally changed the world. But 1 core vs 2 vs 4, or 16 mhz vs 3 ghz is a change in degree, even though the differences between the computer I have now and my first 386 machine based on the original Intel motherboard are massive.

THe cell phone is a different story. Although it's created enough societal changes to keep legions of sociologists busy for a century or so, the reality is is that the cell phone didn't really *add* - it just changed.

You could still get in touch with the kids at home to see who wanted what at the store before you returned from your shopping trip ... you just stuck a quarter into the pay phone at the entrance instead of hauling a cell phone out of your pocket. The BIG change took place much, much earlier, when the phone was first invented and started to be deployed. THAT'S the technology that created the seismic shift in how society and the world operated, not the development of cheap cell phones.

And I think that that's the point that I take from the article. Technology is a good thing, innovation is a good thing - but too much of our thinking of innovation revolves around "Oooooo ....shiny!"

YouTube didn't invent anything - I'd been using streaming video for years (paltalk? firetalk before that? MSN/Yahoo and even more ancient web cam-broadcasting software?) Streaming video wasn't new. What was new was how it was *packaged*
Myspace didn't invent anything. I've been using discussion boards on-line almost since the web was invented. What was new was how it was *packaged*
But both of those sites - and I'm sure we can all think of many more examples - innovated more by packaging than technical, "shiny" advances.

So I think TFA author is essentially correct - innovation is NOT all about technology and science. There are other factors that are equally and sometimes even more important as driving forces.

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm comparing its accuracy vs the same amount of tnt dropped from a conventional bomber of the period. It was a flashy, not terribly useful weapon.

I don't know about pure charcoal, but I'll go with you if you add a little sulfur and phosphorous.

Re:Hmmmm.

[fishbowl]

>I'm comparing its accuracy vs the same amount of tnt dropped from a conventional bomber of the period.

But England had sufficient air defenses against conventional bombers. And where did you get the idea that the V-2 was particularly inaccurate? They were certainly *reliable* -- 4% manufacturing failure rate and better than 80% launch and flight reliability.

As for target accuracy, much of that is attributed to the fact that so many rockets "missed London", but this needs to be understood along with the fact of a successful disinformation campaign that persuaded the Germans to *target* the Eastern outskirts of London, making it more of an intel failure than one of targeting. There is an impedance mismatch between the records of launches reconciled with the records of where they fell. The assumption is that 1225 V-2's were aimed at the center of London and only 518 landed there, but that assumption was held long before it was ever disclosed that the Germans were not *aiming* at the center of London. The actual effective target error may have been close to 6km. Marked as a complete failure as a weapon, but almost certainly a better choice than sending bomber after bomber on a futile suicide mission would have been. Better in every respect than any other missile at the time. Not that bad compared to other missiles before laser-guidance changed everything.

For the record, I'm not on the German's side in that fight or anything :-)

>I don't know about pure charcoal, but I'll go with you if you add a little sulfur and phosphorous.

I'm not thinking in terms of weaponry, rather logistics. If you did nothing else except give one side of a conflict, say, wagonloads of MRE's, you could totally change history. Keeping your armies from starving was always a limiting factor in campaigns.

Re:Hmmmm.

[iluvcapra]

He's just pissed-off he isn't gonna get an iPhone the first day.

Re:Hmmmm.

[SatanicPuppy]

Those air defenses could have been stomped flat by an intelligent application of the same jet technology that got its funding pulled to produce the V-2. The 262 was hellishly effective against allied bombers, and the damn things didn't even go into production until 44, though the design was floated in 39, and finalized in 42. Can you imagine if they'd take the tech seriously, and then applied it to jet bombers?

The huge glaring problem with the V-2 is that it never did much damage. If they'd had 100 times as many of them, maybe they could have done something, but the few that they launched, though scary, didn't do all that much damage.

Like a lot of things in WWII, the V-2 was pushed because Hitler thought it was cool. Loved the idea of bombing london to bits. But like a lot of his strategic ideas, it didn't work out very well...One of the reasons the 262 wasn't pushed was because Hitler wanted it to be able to drop bombs, something its design was woefully unsuited to.

Re:Hmmmm.

[NoOneInParticular]

As for efficiency without robots: zap back 40 years, visit a bank or an insurance company, and witness halls filled with 1000-10000 clerks performing routine account operations. I've seen such a place 20 years ago in Indonesia. Come back to the now and see a tiny computer doing that same stuff millions time faster without a single person in the loop. Finance has been radically transformed due to computers, with not a robot in sight.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Canthros]

George S. Patton's memoirs would disagree with you a little bit; ISTR that he credits his (very brief, toward the end of the war and mostly spent laid up in a hospital) service in WWI France with inspiring him as to the value of armored cavalry. (I also seem to recall that Patton far preferred light tanks, which probably goes back to his experience with early French units.)

I'm guessing that a great many technical innovations don't make their biggest impact in their earliest iterations, but in later developments and refinements of the idea. We don't use steam trains any longer except as novelties, but the steam engine eventual begot the steam turbine, which you'll find in many power generation plants, and the steam train has given way to diesel-driven, turbine-powered engines. The French and British tanks of WWI weren't that influential themselves, but they did serve as able precursors to later designs like the Sherman tank and German panzers.

The first steam-powered autombiles were basically toys for the wealthy, but, combined with other innovations (the assembly line, the internal combustion engine) and manufactured cheaply, they let us commute to work and vacation across the country independently and speedily.

Re:Hmmmm.

[msouth]

Bounty paper towels--when my kids were in diapers I was so thankful for a paper towel that would not tear even under heavy loads of goo. Very sturdy and much cheaper than diaper wipes, and in fact sturdy enough that you could get them wet, put them in a diaper wipe container, and they would be perfectly usable as wipes on the go ('course you could just bring them dry with a bottle of water too).

Then they came out with select-a-size where they perforated at half the normal size, which prevented me having to tear them in half.

Maybe not a big deal to you, but these facts about those paper towels were important innovations to me at that time.

Re:Hmmmm.

[DarkOx]

I have to agree a true innovation is not useful in anyway; until it is applied. Applied innovation is a product. The internal combustion engine, or even the stream engine for that matter are prefect examples.

They were both at the time innonvative ways to rotate a mass. You can't do a darn thing with either one though. Both are large masses of meatal that make noise until you connectect them to a car, saw blade, railroad track, airframe etc. True innonvations rarely if maybe never let us do something that could not have been done before, though sometimes they make what was once impractical practical for the frist time.

We could since the dawn of time transport things on platform. It was hardwork because you had to drag it. The someone inovated put logs under it, pick up the ones behind and move them to the front. Wow things can be move in larger qantity more quickly and with fewer people. Hey the logs work becuase they role, what if hmm wheel! Even better now you just push. Skip some centuries stap and engine to the thing and you have flatbed truck etc etc. We can move things around in ways that never would have made sense before.

We could fly before too and people did lots of experiments with gliders before powered flight. flying was not really practical though. You had to drag the thing up a hill then you could only fly down it, but you could fly.

We could build massive structures hundreds of feet high. Few did because well it made little sense, it required generations of sacrifice and the labor of thousands? Now it makes sense to build all sorts of tall buildings because we have innovated.

What do people really do anyway? Almost everything comes down to eat, sleep, indulge our curiosity and procreate. All things we have always been able to do. We just do it a lot better then we ever did before.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

If the British had repeated the air raid which destroyed Hamburg several more times (e.g. on Berlin, Leipzig, Munich, etc.), the war might have ended sooner.

(7) Albert Speer discussed the bombing of Hamburg when he was interrogated in July 1945.
We were of the opinion that a rapid repetition of this type of attack upon another six German towns would inevitably cripple the will to sustain armament manufacture and war production. It was I who first verbally reported to the Fuehrer at that time that a continuation of these attacks might bring about a rapid end to the war."
link

It is likely that the a-bomb was to sole cause of the decision by Japan to surrender. Of course, the general situation in 1945 played a huge role but the Japanese military officials were prepared to use the entire Japanese population to defeat the Allies. Other factors considered by some to be important:
1. Russian attacks - a great deal of the news of the Russian success arrived in Tokyo after they agreed to surrender and the Japanese were prepared to fight the Russians. The Japanese military wanted a negotiated peace which left them in power.
2. Lack of fuel and supplies - The Japanese military was prepared to fight on. They had 10,000 planes (5000+ for kamikaze attacks on shipping, landing sites, etc. and 5000 for normal activity), multiple (thousands) fast boats for kamikaze attacks on shipping, at least a million men ready to defend the south coast of Japan, etc.

Eventually a naval blockade, bombing attacks on infrastructure, etc. over several years might have led to the defeat of Japan. Alternatively attacks which yielded huge numbers of American casualties (well over 2,000,000 if the entire country had to be taken) could have ended the war in a year or two. The Japanese considered it honorable to fight for their country. When the A-bomb removed their ability to fight against soldiers, they agreed to surrender because there was no point to fighting on and it was not honorable to die pointlessly with no ability to hurt the enemy.

Re:Hmmmm.

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

Does Robert H. Goddard deserve some credit here?

Re:Hmmmm.

[pipingguy]

...the profound impact of Computer Aided Design in Drafting...

CAD is extremely useful when designs can be directly exported to machines that do the work. For most other applications the benefits of adopting CAD is still a bit questionable (unless the job simply requires copying a previous project and changing title blocks for the new customer).

One reason for this is that we now have school-certified, generic "CAD operators" as opposed to "OTJ-trained, discipline-specific draftsmen".

The relatively slow adoption of 3D CAD for many applications is illustrative; 3D is great for visualization and wows the client, but when 2D drawings still must be "blue"printed for the blue-collar crowd (who often know better than the whiz-bang CAD designers) you're still dealing with the same old paper reference materials.

Re:Hmmmm.

[pipingguy]

http://www.amazon.com/American-Connections-Foundin g-Fathers-Networked/dp/0743282264

Re:Hmmmm.

[vuffi_raa]

stem cells: first of all not technology- built by the human body -will be incredibly useful prolly about 10 yrs down the line, not now- but saying that stem cells won't be useful ridiculous because it is just the understanding of the natural cell replication process that stem cells give us, in the long run the objective is to throw the stem cell away and replicate the functions of it.
nano-tech: it is being used regularly in most of the major technological manufacturing base developments right now- think OLED those are microscopic alignments that are performed to create it- same goes for a number of new fiber optic technologies, that sparkly opalescent paint- all considered nano-tech and then there is all of the microprocessor and micro storage development...

Re:Hmmmm.

[vuffi_raa]

totally concur on the youtube- atomfilms and ifilm were around long before youtube - the only difference is the ease to upload the video by the common user. along those lines the "blog" thing drives me nuts- ever since the media got ahold of "blog" it became new- but look at livejournal- how long was that around before the word "blog" hit CNN?

Re:Hmmmm.

[chthon]

Niven and Pournelle understood it in 1974. In 'The Mote in God's Eye', they really took the integrated circuit of 1974 to the limit, by introducing portable computers, like PDA's, and I think even adding wireless networking (but only to the ship's computer I think).

Re:Hmmmm.

[jp10558]

Computers have not nearly been as revolutionary as people claim they are.

Computers have been plenty revolutionary. Information Technology - literally the technology and methods to deal with information more efficiently allows both research, reference, and reporting in ways nearly impossible before computers existed. The PC revolution has brought those powers to almost anyone in developed countries. The idea and implementation of linking all these machines together into the internet allows communication and data transfer at an unimaginable level compared to previous technologies.

Computers may not help education, but they do help a critical part of education, libraries. CD based journal archives are far more space effective than bound editions. They allow school libraries to have journal archives that would be impossible traditionally. The Online versions allow even larger archives as well as instantenaous updates - something basically impossible without the internet.

The rest of the internet provides reference archives beyond any traditional mechanism - you can search a large percentage of the worlds news outlets, not just the huge papers and magizines as before. You can search for keywords in seconds vs hours of manually scanning microfilm.

Finally, computers allow simulation of driving, flying and more that provides far safer initial traning and experiance compared to traditional book learning and then doing it for real.

Information technology

[the_kanzure]

The RobotWisdom timeline is an interesting find and illustrates nicely our progress in information representation.

I wonder

[homey of my owney]

I wonder how he wrote his tome. Seems like that quill got plenty of use.

It's an American Thing

[Puls4r]

I tend to think of this an American problem. An excellent analogy can be made, for instance, between American and Japanese technology. American companies concentrate on hitting "home runs". This is exciting, wins you the occasional game, and makes "superstars". Japanese companies concentrate on "singles". They concentrate on the long-term game plan, and make numerous small improvements to their technology. We see history the same way. How many people know who hit the most home runs in baseball, versus who has the highest all-time batting average? How many people know who developed the atomic bomb, versus who developed the first machine gun? We are very much a glitz and glamour, or "home run" society.

Re:It's an American Thing

[drinkypoo]

From the oh-so-black-humor department: I'm pretty sure more Japanese know who invented the first H-Bomb than know who invented the first machine gun, too.

Re:It's an American Thing

[MightyYar]

I guess the term "problem" is all about perspective. American entrepreneurs are not afraid of failure, and failure is not shameful in American culture - indeed we relish a good comeback (wasn't Bill Clinton the "Comeback Kid"?). It isn't so much about being forward-thinking, it is about caution and fear of failure.

As for the atomic bomb versus the machine gun, I'd wager that Richard Gatling is at least as famous as any of the Manhattan Project scientists, save Einstein - who was famous anyway.

Re:It's an American Thing

[Mattintosh]

Yeah, I'm guessing that if you asked most people "What did Mr. Gatling invent?", then ask them "What did Mr. Oppenheimer invent?", they'd know the first for sure and maybe would know the second. The reason? Mr. Gatling's invention was the "Gatling gun" and people still refer to automatic weapons as "gats". Oppenheimer is most famous for working with Einstein on the A-bomb and making an "oh god look at that" sort of comment during one of the tests. Seriously. Most people remember him for his commentary rather than his work on the A-bomb.

Re:It's an American Thing

[AP2k]

And if Gatling doesnt do it for you, Maxim sure will.

Re:It's an American Thing

[turing_m]

I think that's as much a testosterone thing as anything. Europeans have more testosterone on average, which leads to more risk taking, more being stubborn, less group/committee type decisions compared to Japanese. More chair throwing too.

Re:It's an American Thing

[foobsr]

Most people remember him for his commentary rather than his work on the A-bomb.

And I thought he was best known for being a communist insurgent.

CC.

Re:It's an American Thing

[Adambomb]

This is something that came to mind after the article concerning Soviet Era videogames. Your "home run" society rings close to the "high score" society. I wonder how different things could be if being the alpha werent seen as such a driving force.

I forget the comedian on Dr. Katz who said it but it was referring to fans at sporting events shouting "We're number 1! We're number 1" "No, you're a little confused, THEY'RE number 1, you're fat and drunk."

Re:It's an American Thing

[sconeu]

"Oppenheimer is most famous for working with Einstein on the A-bomb and making an "oh god look at that" sort of comment during one of the tests."

The quote is "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds", and the test was the Trinity test in July 1945.

Re:It's an American Thing

[DerekLyons]

How many people know who developed the atomic bomb, versus who developed the first machine gun?

Probably fairly few know either - especially since the former was a group project and the latter a process that took place over time. With regards to the atomic bomb, most people probably associate Einstein with the bomb, even though he had nothing to with the Manhattan Engineer District and nothing to do with the larger concept of atomic weapons besides lending his name and fame to a letter urging research into them.

Re:It's an American Thing

[Kopiok]

And Einstein wasn't even a Manhattan Project scientist! That's what I call famous!

Re:It's an American Thing

[Medievalist]

most people probably associate Einstein with the bomb, even though he had nothing to with the Manhattan Engineer District and nothing to do with the larger concept of atomic weapons besides lending his name and fame to a letter urging research into them. I think you're probably right. In reality Leo Szilard invented both the nuclear reactor and the bomb. Szilard consulted Einstein as to the feasibility of the device, and as you correctly noted he also got Einstein to co-author a letter to Roosevelt. Because Einstein was considered insufficiently trustworthy (and far too Jewish) by Hoover and other influential US apparatchiks, he was not officially part of the Manhattan project, though supposedly he was secretly kept "in the loop" by Szilard and other scientists... perhaps an urban legend.

The original post contains great unintentional humor, since Oppenheimer didn't invent the bomb, and Gatling didn't invent the machine gun. Practically nobody knows about Szilard (Hungarian) or Puckle (British). And there are lots of gun experts who don't consider either the Gatling or the Puckle (or the Milletreuse) to be "true" machine guns anyway, but that's a whole 'nother pointless debate.

Re:It's an American Thing

[no reason to be here]

Most homers in a season: Barry Bonds
Most homers in a career: Hank Aaron (though this will likely change soon)
Most homers per at bat: Babe Ruth, i think.
Highest all-time batting avg: Ty Cobb

and, no, i did not look this up.

Re:It's an American Thing

[pipingguy]

"First Post!"

Re:It's an American Thing

[rabiddeity]

I know this is a bit backwards, but ironically you'll see the same behavior in Japanese baseball and American baseball. It's much more common in Japan for hitters to bunt and make a single, taking one for the team so that one runner can get into position to score. In American baseball only pitchers bunt, and not even all of them at that.

Re:OK

[SatanicPuppy]

Basically that our society is shaped more by old tech than new tech, and that flashy new tech only has relevance based on how it will alter society 50 years down the line.

In other words: "You goddamn kids get off my lawn!"

Re:OK

[niceone]

Heh, I think your first post answered the question pretty comprehensively thanks!

I don't take advice about technology from writers.

[SadGeekHermit]

Most writers can barely boot their computers. They also idolize people who have been dead for hundreds of years; most of them have a bust of Shakespeare hidden somewhere about their apartment, and consider him to be the sine qua non of literature, even though he was actually his era's equivalent of a Hollywood screenwriter. If he was alive today, he'd be doing Buffy episodes.

Seriously, this sort of story stinks of sour grapes. Most of the arty-farty crowd can barely pay their rent, and they've long envied the successes of the technical sector. Even back in school, while those of us who were able were studying differential equations and calculus (and the arty were saying things like "math is hard") it was that way. Try telling some lit major about your new file server, see how interested he is in it. Good luck; you'll be lucky if he or she sticks around for more than five minutes.

Technologists change the world on a regular basis. Writers complain about it, then wax nostalgic about it, and finally dismiss it as overblown. Has it ever been any different?

Feh. What a lot of hot air.

Re:And they have it wrong

[AKAImBatman]

For example, when Napolean was invading everywhere, he put up money to call for supplies innovation, particularly food storage.

He also installed the first visual telegraph system in France. Thanks to the telegraph, Napoleon was able to improve his communications turnaround with the battlefield to mere minutes instead of hours to days. That innovation paved the way for the invention of the electric telegraph; an invention that literally defined the computer and telephone communication standards we use today.

a technological palimpsest?

[192939495969798999]

you scrape off and reuse all the appliances in your kitchen for something else than their original purpose? Hmmm... reminds me of the classic quote: "I don't think that means what you think it means."

Wrong title?

[axlash]

I think the article focuses mostly on technological innovation... I can't think of any argument as to why innovation is altogether a bad thing. Sure, it may bring about unforseen and unwanted changes - but even in this case, the impact of the changes can be mitigated by careful introduction of the innovation.

Standing on the shoulders of giants

[replicant108]

The commonest error is the failure to recognise that innovation it is an innately incremental and collaborative process. Technological progress, like almost any human endeavour, is a social activity. The greatest philosophers and innovators have always recognised that they were standing on the shoulders of giants.

The current IP-obsessed culture inhibits collaboration, and hampers the natural process of innovation in society.

Fortunately, initiatives like the Free Software movement have shown that innovation can thrive without creating artificial monopolies.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[MontyApollo]

Actually, the role of patents is to support incremental advances. Everbody gets to see the design rather than it remaining hidden. You don't have to re-invent the wheel, but instead focus on how to make it better.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[replicant108]

Actually, the role of patents is to support incremental advances. Everbody gets to see the design rather than it remaining hidden.

That was the original rationale, certainly.

I don't think it has been the reality for a long time.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[MontyApollo]

Depends on what you mean by a long time. I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with. There are some fundamental as well as practical problems to software patents, and something does need to be done about it.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[replicant108]

I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with.

Software patents are a serious problem, but they are not the only issue.

The IP consensus in the Real World (outside Slashdot) is very cultish and 'faith-based'.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[DerangedAlchemist]

I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with.

Software patents are a serious problem, but they are not the only issue.

The IP consensus in the Real World (outside Slashdot) is very cultish and 'faith-based'.

It might have something to do with it being a very successful method. Can you really point to many(any?) examples where IP is unsuccessful and yet had been properly applied? By properly applied I mean applied in such a way to promote innovation (which is the only point of IP laws).

Most of those Real World proponents you refer to only think they believe in IP laws. They actually believe in using lawyers to competitive advantage, which is not the same thing.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[bit01]

It might have something to do with it being a very successful method.

You're doing the standard PTO evidence-free hand waving. We can't even measure success let alone evaluate whether the IP law we currently have is better than the virtually infinite number of possible alternatives, including no patents at all. It would great to see even basic science driving the high impact decisions about what forms of IP law to create, if any.

I would support IP laws if there were actual evidence for them. There isn't any.

And before you spout any silliness about "number of patents issued" let me remind you the same argument applies to "number of thefts" or "amount of taxes". It's the broken window fallacy amongst other problems.

---

Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants

[DerangedAlchemist]

You're doing the standard PTO evidence-free hand waving. We can't even measure success let alone evaluate whether the IP law we currently have is better than the virtually infinite number of possible alternatives, including no patents at all. It would great to see even basic science driving the high impact decisions about what forms of IP law to create, if any.

You haven't given any evidence either, but I'm not even sure we disagree. I was protesting the idea that IP laws cannot and have not been used to promote innovation. The real problem now is that 'not obvious to someone skilled in the art or craft' seems to have become interpreted as 'not obvious to the average, unskilled 8 year old'.

But, for example, much fewer drugs would exist without patents. There are currently many promising drug candidates that are not patentable. Right now they are sitting in the situation that would exist if IP laws for drugs did not exist. The result is almost no research into these at all. A small amount is done with public money, such as at universities, but the amounts are pathetic compared to what drug companies throw around. No one drops 3/4 of a billion dollars without expecting a return. Politicians know there are cheaper ways to buy votes. As it is, drug companies are having trouble justifying spending that kind of money because drug resistance tends to cut out profits within 5-10 years.

The importance of innovation is TOTALLY overrated

[Odiumjunkie]

Our obsession with innovation also blinds us to how much of technology is focussed on keeping things the same. The dikes of Holland maintain the integrity of the nation, and great ingenuity goes into preserving and improving them. We're going to need a lot more, and more powerful, technologies of conservation: not just the technologies of levees and barriers against the ocean but technologies to maintain the supply of potable water, breathable air, and arable soil; technologies to maintain as much biodiversity as we can or want to maintain; technologies to preserve and renew our crumbling Victorian legacies of infrastructure (sewers, rail beds, roads, and bridges); technologies to stabilize and prevent the dispersal of radioactive waste. There may be hype attending new technological artifacts, but there's money to be made, and spent, in maintaining them in usable shape. The take-home price of a P.C. is typically only about ten per cent of its lifetime cost, and sixty per cent of the lifetime cost of some military equipment is maintenance. The federal government spends twice as much on preserving highways as it does on building new ones. More than half of automobile-dealer profits come from servicing cars, less than a third from selling new cars, and much the same is true of the civil jet-engine business.

Kind of like the layman's view of evolution

[circletimessquare]

There is this notion of evolution being this steady march of progress resulting in us, humanity. This view of evolution, and the steady simple view of the march of technology and progress, might be called a dumb, harmless way to look at history/ natural history. The layman doesn't need to know the details, he just needs to know the basics to the kind of questions everyone asks. And if the answers are presented in such a way that glosses over subtle complexities, so be it.

The most important subtle complexity is the answer to the question: "What is the f***ing point?" The simple dumb answer is "progress." The real answer is "just get the f***ing job done." That the job gets done with more and more complexity is merely an after effect, not the point of evolution or technological innovation. But the common layman's answer needs a driving force to dumb down the narrative, and progress has become that mythical answer, and it's mostly a harmless replacement in how to think about evolution/ technological change.

I mean, technology and innovation are intertwined. Duh. The article doesn't dismantle the idea of technology and innovation being intertwined, but merely tweaks the concept by pointing to old technologies being retained, and new ones not always working out. Well no shit.

Likewise, evolution doesn't care one stinking bit about what creatures are made, there is merely deviation from the average complexity of an animal, and occasionally the animal gets very complex. Like our brain. From evolution's point of view, it's just a statistical aberration in terms of complexity to get the primary job done: surviving death and breeding a new generation. Increasing complexity isn't the point. All evolution cares about is that we successfully breed, or not. From evolution's point of view, human beings, horseshoe crabs, and slime molds all do a good job of that, and so we are equivalent successes. That we do it with a lot more complexity than a slime mold means nothing at all. That horseshoe crabs have been doing it for billions of years while we only a few million or less means nothing at all.

Same with techonology and innovation: who cares how complex, as long as the f***ing job gets done. So some technology hardly evolves, old ones are picked up again after years of neglect, etc. It's a subtle and complex versus simplistic and quick way to sample a deep and gigantic field of inquiry, and if mythical concepts like "progress" have to be created as a driving force in order to bridge the difference between intense study and quick overview, so be it, it's a harmless mental substitution.

Re:Kind of like the layman's view of evolution

[Red Flayer]

The real answer is "just get the f***ing job done."

I'd say the real answer is, "just get the f***ing job done more efficiently".

As far as progress being mythical, I think there's a semantic problem that makes a world of difference.

Progress without a goal is meaningless. So, the generic term "progress" when referring to technology in itself means nothing, it's a catch phrase to intimate that somehow things are incrementally better than previously. Note that "better" is an amorphous term as well.

However, when you get down to the philosophical basis of it, "progress" is the incremental approach towards some goal -- be it a platonic ideal (which is pretty much how I consider the term to be generally used) or towards a specific goal. Complexity is not a prerequisite for progress at all, and I think that it's a bit misleading to equate the two. Efficiency would be a better analogue to progress -- and that fits in with your biological metaphor pretty well. Those individuals that more efficiently accomplish the tasks of gaining food and surviving will be the ones most likely to survive and reproduce successfully (since they'll have more resources to devote to reproduction and care of young if applicable).

Similarly, those "innovations" that enable us to more efficiently achieve our goals (be it resource production/extraction/conservation, killing of enemies, attract members of the opposite sex, get all the housework done quicker/more thoroughly, or impress our neighbors) will be the ones that are adopted. These are the ones that can be classified as "progress".

Re:Kind of like the layman's view of evolution

[nine-times]

Same with techonology and innovation: who cares how complex, as long as the f***ing job gets done.

Excellent point. Often people focus on the novelty of solutions and forget to ask after the efficacy of the solutions. For example, it's been a big fad to come up with ways to do everything with computers without necessarily thinking through all the details of how well the old solutions work. People say, "Oh, well in the future we can replace teachers with computers!" and they sometimes fail to recognize that being taught by another person is part of the point. That's not to say that computers can't be useful in education, but sometimes the old ways are best.

It's not just an issue of technology, either. Sometimes we throw out old traditions because they're "old and stupid" without considering that these traditions might serve a purpose. Sometimes we've come up with better ways to accomplish the same purpose, and sometimes enough has changed that those purposes don't need to be served anymore. Still, it's worth considering that often, when we have an old established ways of doing things, we settled on doing things that way for a good reason. That reason might just not exist anymore.

Re:Kind of like the layman's view of evolution

[DamnStupidElf]

Likewise, evolution doesn't care one stinking bit about what creatures are made, there is merely deviation from the average complexity of an animal, and occasionally the animal gets very complex. Like our brain. From evolution's point of view, it's just a statistical aberration in terms of complexity to get the primary job done: surviving death and breeding a new generation. Increasing complexity isn't the point. All evolution cares about is that we successfully breed, or not. From evolution's point of view, human beings, horseshoe crabs, and slime molds all do a good job of that, and so we are equivalent successes. That we do it with a lot more complexity than a slime mold means nothing at all. That horseshoe crabs have been doing it for billions of years while we only a few million or less means nothing at all.

Horseshoe crabs and slime molds won't outlive the solar system unless we (or some other beings capable of getting off the planet) help them. They'll bake as the Sun grows and cooks the Earth into Mercury. In the long term, it's obvious that intelligence has more survival potential than replication alone. The key is finding the blend of intelligence and replication that doesn't create complete nihilists or luddites.

Re:Kind of like the layman's view of evolution

[feepness]

it's just a statistical aberration in terms of complexity to get the primary job done: surviving death and breeding a new generation.

Evolution doesn't "care" whether you survive death, just as long as you get the breeding done beforehand.

New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[mnslinky]

On a similar note, why does everything need to be re-engineered? As I get older, I find I appreciate older technologies -- even things as simple as a shovel. For example, new shovels have hadles made of plastic, with a rubber grip and cost $70US. It *might* last me a couple years. On the other hand, I can borrow my grandpa's shovel, with a hard-wood handle and no rubber grip, and do the job just as well. I pick one of those up for $5 at a garage sale and it'll probably out live me.

New innovation doesn't always mean better, just different.

Re:New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[turing_m]

No shit.

Give me a cast iron skillet for $30 any day versus teflon anything, irrespective of cost. Your great grandkids will still be frying bacon on that thing.

It all comes down to money. There is a good living to be made in parting fools from money.

Re:New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[King_TJ]

That's because the designers of the newer shovels don't consider "longevity" nearly as high a priority as you do. Most likely, they were only interested in making whatever type of shovel improved their profit margins the most. They quickly discovered that the shovel promising more comfort during its use sold well next to traditional shovels with no rubber grip or plastic handle.

In essence, the majority "outvoted" you with their pocketbooks, thinking they'd rather have a shovel that isn't as likely to tear up one's hands during use, even if the plastic handle might break off after a few years of use.

If everyone thought the same as you do, the plastic handles and rubber grips would disappear, as everybody ignored them.

(I'd also add here that you illustrate the point that people often don't make the smartest purchasing decisions. Sometimes our options are on the store shelves because they successfully fool the majority into buying them - rather than because they're the "best" products.)

Re:New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[Falstius]

I've broken a few wood handled shovels, but my plastic shovel and maul are perfectly happy. As the wood ages it drys and becomes brittle. It takes effort to keep a wood handled shovel in working condition for 50 years. The new plastic handles are virtually unbreakable and maintenance free. So aside from decomposition of the plastic by UV or the blade rusting away (you still need to oil it), that shovel could last forever (which is why I got mine from an estate sale).

Also, I love my cast iron skillet, but bacon is better when cooked in the oven. And my anodized aluminum wok is scratch proof and much easier to clean.

Re:New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[t0rkm3]

I guess I am your diametrically opposite anecdote.

Nothing cooks bacon better than my 'properly' seasoned cast iron skillet. That goes the same for fried chicken, chicken fried steak, gizzards, okra, and potatoes.

I have bought the most expensive plastic handled shovels on the market and broken all of them within weeks. I own the majority stake of a light construction business and no one that works for me will use a fiberglass handled shovel. Hell, I broke one stumping a small azalea.

Wood handled mauls and axes stand up better if the user is prone to overstroking. If you don't use your tool regularly I would recommend oiling it, and storing in in a cool place rather than a hot shed. If you store it in the shed it's going to dry out very quickly and splinter or break.

Re:New and/or Innovative isn't always better...

[pipingguy]

people often don't make the smartest purchasing decisions

I keep trying to get Taco to refund my Slashdot subscription dollars but I never get an answer...

Elsworth Monkton Toohey

[grimflick]

Couldn't have said it better. That is to say that Toohey might have said the same thing. Toohey is the Anti-Hero of the Ayn Rand novel 'The Fountainhead', and had such disdain for the common man that he would say such things to get people to decide to actually abandon the time saving or life improving devices they already had - since they had at some time used the thing that had been superceded. Like saying that because I had been to the mall sometime since I had first shopped at amazon.com that I must have decided that the mall was better than amazon, and as such I should abandon using Amazon forever. In My Humble Opinion Toohey would make such an argument just to make my life more difficult. The author of tfa seems remarkable similar. I suggest critical reading, and caution.

ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[nomadic]

He's a historian; he's looking at the actual historical effects of what have previously been regarded as incredible innovations, and finding in the grand scheme of things those specific inventions they haven't really been as important as most people think. It's not an anti-technology

Seriously, this sort of story stinks of sour grapes. Most of the arty-farty crowd can barely pay their rent, and they've long envied the successes of the technical sector.

Actually all those arty-farty subjects came in real handy in law school, so don't worry, I'm doing just fine rent-wise.

Even back in school, while those of us who were able were studying differential equations and calculus (and the arty were saying things like "math is hard")

You know, my first job was as a sysadmin and I never had to do any differential equations or calculus. Don't think any of my programmer friends had to either.

it was that way. Try telling some lit major about your new file server, see how interested he is in it. Good luck; you'll be lucky if he or she sticks around for more than five minutes.

There isn't anyone on the planet who would stick around for more than five minutes to hear about your file server, technical sector or not. And if you're telling a "she" about your file server, you really have to work on your pickup skills...

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[nomadic]

Yeah, ok. You didn't get your lawyer job with your knowledge of Shakespeare, pal. You studied a specific TRADE in LAW SCHOOL. All that arty-farty crap you studied beforehand was just an artificial barrier to entry designed to reduce the field to people with enough money to pay for six to eight years of school.

You have a lot of opinions on something you don't have any first-hand knowledge of, don't you? I can assure you, the more arty-farty stuff you do in undergrad, the easier time you'll have in law school. And law school is expensive, which is why the vast majority of law students take out loans, so the field certainly isn't limited to people with enough money to pay their way through. By the way, I actually did study Shakespeare in law school.

There's no *practical* reason why "law school" can't be an undergrad degree.

Sure, if you were willing to either a) dramatically lower the difficulty of law school, or b) accept a dropout rate about 50% in the first year.

My point about diff.eq and calculus was that techies study these things in school. I did. You did not.

No, that wasn't your point. First of all, because that doesn't really constitute a "point". Go back and read your first post again. Congratulations on your rental successes, I'm sure you're very happy. But tell me, did you get a good price for your soul?

Oh I have no problem with what I do. Since you really don't know what that is, other than "practice law", neither do you, hmm?

There are so many lawyers getting minted these days, I can't help but think the prices may be dropping...

Yep, but at least we can't be outsourced.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

Points, schmoints. We're chewing the fat on a public forum. But if you want to get all lawyerly with me, my POINT is that non-technologists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to technology, and are part of a subculture that takes pride in distrusting and disliking science and technology, so they're not really worth paying attention to. The best approach is ridicule, followed by disdain.

As far as "practice law" goes, well, you should recalibrate your humor detector; I think it's on the fritz. Maybe Satan can lend you his? Speaking of which, what makes you think you can't be outsourced? Legal departments are one of the things companies are thinking of getting rid of, right up there with middle management. Better hang out your shingle while you can...

P.S. I wasn't "talking smack about" you, per se. At least lawyers practice a skilled trade. I was discussing the useless academics that sit around and pontificate about things they have no direct knowledge of, and aren't involved with, as though their lofty title "historian" (sometimes it's a "Philosopher") gives them some special insight. They're ridiculous people, convinced that their dusty old books contain actual knowledge. The TRUTH is, they're just regurgitating the same, tired old OPINIONS their little cadre has decided to support. It's all crap.

Oh, and I'm not posting this in a hostile mood -- I'm rather enjoying this bit of fencing. So don't take it personally, i'm just playing with you. I'm right about the arty-farty crowd, though. You know it's true.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[nomadic]

Speaking of which, what makes you think you can't be outsourced? Legal departments are one of the things companies are thinking of getting rid of, right up there with middle management. Better hang out your shingle while you can...

Ahhh, but we have a lot more pull with the legislature than you guys. Plus in most states the state's Supreme Court gets to say who practices law and who doesn't, so that's another level of protection. While we might end up outsourced, it's not going to happen for a very long while (and that's going to be a nice, long, drawn-out fight).

P.S. I wasn't "talking smack about" you, per se. At least lawyers practice a skilled trade. I was discussing the useless academics that sit around and pontificate about things they have no direct knowledge of, and aren't involved with, as though their lofty title "historian" (sometimes it's a "Philosopher") gives them some special insight. They're ridiculous people, convinced that their dusty old books contain actual knowledge. The TRUTH is, they're just regurgitating the same, tired old OPINIONS their little cadre has decided to support. It's all crap.

I agree that there are many useless academics, but I've found that the people in the history and philosophy departments tend to usually know what they're talking about (at least more than some of the other social sciences/arts/etc). And a lot of the most prominent philosophers of science come from science backgrounds; Thomas Kuhn was a physicist, Hegel was a mathematician, etc.. Historians, whatever you think of their theories, have to at least master a large field of more-or-less objective facts before they can even start on their theories. I think this guy may be wrong, but I don't think it would be the result of any hostility to technology per se; obviously he must be interested in technology, considering the career path he chose.

Oh, and I'm not posting this in a hostile mood -- I'm rather enjoying this bit of fencing. So don't take it personally, i'm just playing with you. I'm right about the arty-farty crowd, though. You know it's true.

If I didn't like arguing, I wouldn't have gone into litigation...You should see the arguments I'm trying to start on the OSI thread.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

Ok, you've got me there -- you guys DO have a lot of pull with the government. So... Touche.

On your next point, I think that academics with a background in technology tend to not be too useless. Usually they tend to be more sensible than the mainstream "liberal artisans" (a friend of mine calls them this) they're lumped in with. I'd trust Kuhn or Hegel to come up with a sensible point; the historian of the article, on the other hand... Well...

I occasionally experience the suspicion that luddites like him would prefer to write their screeds on a beat up old Royal typewriter, mailing their screeds to a publisher in an ink-stained manila envelope. Sometimes I suspect that they are in love with an idealized view of "how things used to be" rather than how they ever actually WERE. And of course, I find them to be amusing little pinatas, painted with gay colors, attractive and hanging low enough to take easy, languid swipes at. :)

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[Gorshkov]

My point about diff.eq and calculus was that techies study these things in school. I did. You did not.

Guess somebody should have told me that before I got an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies. If I were to describe myself in terms of training, I'd say I was a historian.

Funny how that hasn't stopped me from being a programmer since 1982 .... and I started out at Control Data, which was SCIENTIFIC, not business computing.

Then there's the shutdown system I worked on for a nuclear reactor. I still, to this day, don't have any real understanding of the maths involved in some of the calculations - but then again, I didn't HAVE to. The important thing, even for that project, was that I understand numerical methods well enough to be able to code the equations the physicists & engineers gave me to return the proper results.

Being a programmer (which I think should qualify me as being a "techie") involves logic, problem decomposition and definition, not math.

My training as a historian, which gave me the ability to sift to massive amounts of information, extract the relevant bits, and put them together in a cohesive whole makes me "perfectly" suited to be a programmer - and is much more useful than a thorough knowledge of partial differential equations could ever be.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[measure]

While you are correct that you don't need calculus or differential equations in most programming / technology sector jobs, it is also important to note that to get the jobs in the first place many of us had to get BS degrees in programs that did require those classes. We really do know calculus, and it is likely that because of that we are smarter and better able to do our jobs.

Ask your programmer friends. I bet they would agree...

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

You are a statistical outlyer, not a trend. I seriously doubt very many historians could duplicate your experience.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[Gorshkov]

You are a statistical outlyer, not a trend. I seriously doubt very many historians could duplicate your experience

That I am a historian who chose to become a programmer may very well make me a statistical aberration. But it doesn't change the fact that the skills required to be a good historian are very directly useful to most aspects of computer programming.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

Useful but hardly sufficient. Of course you spent quite a bit of time learning my trade, and those skills did NOT come from historian training.

What really happened here is, you used to be a historian but there was no money in it. So you bought a LOT of books, and you retrained as a programmer.

Your experience proves nothing. You have no point. You are merely distracting everyone with a pointless story about how it's possible for a historian to learn about technology. How is this new or proof of anything besides the fact that you couldn't make a living with your historian training? How does this have anything to do with MY point, which is that most arty-farty types know nothing about high tech and therefore should really just stop talking about it?

I mean really.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[Gorshkov]

Useful but hardly sufficient.

And where, pray tell, did I claim that is was?

Of course you spent quite a bit of time learning my trade

I don't know how long you've been a programmer, but I've been at it since 1982. I suspect it's more likely that you learned *my* trade.

and those skills did NOT come from historian training.

Personally, I think it's a wee bit arrogant to think that the ability to distill a problem to it's essentials, dissect it, and solve it logically is a skill that's common in programming only.

Bits like language syntax, methods of expression, etc, are details. They are absolutely required to be able to express the solution to a problem (write the source code), but that's not where the real skill is. The REAL skill is the ability to solve the problem in the first place - without that, you have nothing to express. You need to be able to break down a large problem into progressively smaller and smaller chunks, rearrange it in some semblance of order, and THEN express the solution. The details of how you express that solution can be looked up in any reference manual anywhere ..... but first, you need to have a solution worth expressing.

Hmmmm ..... would now be a good time to also mention that part of my "training" was becoming qualified as a linguist, and a translator? You'd be amazed at how helpful linguistics training can help you absorb the concepts and ideas behind programming languages, and therefore become productive in them much quicker than those trained in "only" the sciences. But maybe I shouldn't - that would just make me artsy-fartsier, I suppose.

What really happened here is, you used to be a historian but there was no money in it. So you bought a LOT of books, and you retrained as a programmer

Actually, you're absolutely, 100%, totally, completely, drop-dead wrong ... that's the danger of making assumptions.

First, I had no intention of finding work as a historian, period. I took the degree I did out of pure interest - I always liked history.

Second, the job at Control Data was supposed to be a summer job ..... but I got bitten by the "Ooooohhh .... Shiney!" bug, and simply became MORE interested in computers than I was in history. And as a final note, I worked with computers because I found them INTERESTING, not because of the money.

Your experience proves nothing. You have no point. You are merely distracting everyone with a pointless story about how it's possible for a historian to learn about technology.

Not at all. Scroll back, and see my first comment in this thread. I was responding to something you said:

My point about diff.eq and calculus was that techies study these things in school. I did. You did not.

You see, you made a fairly commmon mistake. Interests aren't mutually exclusive. I don't have to give up a love of history for a fascination - I can enjoy both. And I also enjoy hockey. Politics. Raising my daughter. And I can do all of those things, because I am capable of having multiple interests - as is pretty well any half-way well-rounded individual. And whether or not you happen to study a technical interest in university instead of one of your other interests as nothing - absolutly ZERO - to do with my being a "techie" or not.

You say "techies study this". I said that's not true - I'm a techie, and I studied THAT. That doesn't make what I said a pointless story - it makes it proof that your statement was incorrect and invaled, because *I* am proof that what you claim isn't true. And there are very many other people floating around in our industry that ALSO have formal university degrees in fields other than computing science .... and each of those different perspectives *adds* t

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

And after that huge, long-winded diatribe, you STILL haven't done a single thing to prove my points wrong. You're NOT A HISTORIAN, dumbass. You studied it once. It has NOTHING to do with what you do now. If you've been a programmer since 1982, I hate to break it to you, you're a programming geek, not an arty-farty historian type.

EVEN IF you put on airs and tell yourself what an artfag you are, EVEN IF when you're not programming you're wandering around coffee houses in a turtleneck and a blazer, bothering people with your "insights" about the history of technology, EVEN IF you're as pretentious an ass as you seem to be, YOU'RE STILL A PROGRAMMER, NOT A HISTORIAN.

And you want to talk about "arrogant"? What makes you think you have anything to "teach" us? How irritating. How pretentious.

Go bother someone who gives a shit.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[SadGeekHermit]

Oh, by the way --

You might want to dig out a logic textbook and review.

A single counterexample (you) doesn't prove that my statement is false. It merely proves that it is not UNIVERSALLY true. On the whole, in most cases, my statement is absolutely correct. Again, you're a statistical outlyer, and not significant in terms of the broader discussion.

If you hadn't wasted your entire undergraduate degree farting around with HISTORY, of all things, you'd know that. What an incredible waste of time! Ah, well, I'm sure you had fun while the rest of us were studying.

It's hilarious that you claim you had a job "waiting for you" at some NSA-like agency in Canada, which would have paid better than a programming job. Yeah, I'm sure. And with this hot job waiting for you, you just turned it down to play with "teh shiny" eh? Bullshit. Either they didn't want YOU, or it wasn't much of a job to begin with. "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" eh?

Ta.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[Gorshkov]

And after that huge, long-winded diatribe, you STILL haven't done a single thing to prove my points wrong.

Then I guess that one of the skills NOT necessary to be a computer programmer is reading comprehension. Let's go over this again, shall we?

you STILL haven't done a single thing to prove my points wrong.

Then apparently, we're going to need a lesson in logic. You say techies study calculus and maths.

I'm a techie.

I studied Soviet & East European Studies. (please note the lack of a math component).

Therefore you're wrong.

See how easy that was?

What makes you think you have anything to "teach" us? How irritating. How pretentious.

Please read the above quote very, very carefully. I leave it as an "exercise for the interested reader" to determine where the pretension lies.

Re:ooh I think you're talking smack about ME

[Gorshkov]

A single counterexample (you) doesn't prove that my statement is false. It merely proves that it is not UNIVERSALLY true. On the whole, in most cases, my statement is absolutely correct.

"On the whole, in most cases", you made a blanket statement of fact. To recap:

My point about diff.eq and calculus was that techies study these things in school. I did. You did not.

There is no qualification there. It is a bald statement with NO qualifications. It's an absolute claim. Therefore, my being an exception is proof that you are wrong, not a statistical anomaly.

Maybe while I'm digging out my logic texts, you can haul out an english text, if it's not too artsy for you.

And with this hot job waiting for you, you just turned it down to play with "teh shiny" eh?

Yup

Bullshit.

Nope. Hard as this may be for you to believe, for some people, money isn't the motivating factor.

Either they didn't want YOU, or it wasn't much of a job to begin with. "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" eh?

There's no "shoulda, coulda, woulda" at all. I made the choice I wanted to make, and I have had no regrets whatsoever.

Now please, find something else to troll about. You've been shown to be wrong - suck it up and deal.

I'm done with this thread.

V2ROCKET.COM

[westlake]

I thought I have heard statements that if the war had lasted just 6 months longer then the V-2s could have changed the face of the war.

The V-2 had a one-ton warhead and a range of about 200 miles. First used against London in September of 1944. Too little, too late. V2ROCKET.COM

The whole problem with science and journalism

[bargainsale]

TFA quotes Carl Sagan's all-too-true: "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." and then says "this is exactly as it should be." Even so-called science journalists in the MSM generally have no idea what science is all about. The problem is not that they lack knowledge in some specific domain (who doesn't?) but that they don't get the basic concepts e.g. the systematic pursuit of knowledge by a continual willingness to consider that your best theory so far may be wrong. Worse yet is that many if not most journalists, like this one, think that their ignorance is not actually a problem. In a democracy, rational decisions from politicians on technical issues (including medical issues) can't come about in a vacuum - there needs to be a background of _informed_ public debate. This casual comment from a journalist shows why we don't get that so often.

James Burke

[splatterboy]

The TFAs author is barely techonogically and historically literate. A few books by science historian James Burke would help immensely (Connections, The day the universe changed, The axmakers gift etc.) It would be a start.

Re:James Burke

[zaft]

No, he's a noted historian of science and is on the faculty of Harvard.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/shapin.htm l

Re:James Burke

[pipingguy]

I highly recommend James Burke's writing. Then again, I could be a moron for all you know.

Re:OT: Grammar nazi needed

[swordgeek]

It's a substitution within a quote. When it's a single letter at the beginning of a sentence, it generally indicates a case change. Most often this is because the quoted part comes in the middle of a sentence, and the preceeding material isn't relevant to the quote.

Innovation when you're not looking

[John Bayko]

One thing that people note about most predictions for future technology is that they rarely come true, while the technology that actually makes a difference seems to "come out of nowhere" before it's suddenly everywhere.

The reason is that people are fixated on the new and amazing promises of technology, but the thing is that those are new and amazing simply because nobody actually does things like that in normal life. All real advances of technology are the result of changing ordinary everyday things because those are the things people do all the time, and a little improvement has a big effect.

Giant airplanes like the Boeing 747 or Airbus 380 are not world changing because they are giant flying things, they are world changing because they let people travel more effectively. People like the idea of flying as entertainment but almost nobody does routinely it for its own sake (some do in private planes or gliders), but people travel all the time. The fact that it's in the air is incidental.

But many people only see the flying, and not the travel, and think that flying is the world changing event. So they miss out when they try to predict the next world changing event. For example with computers, everyone thought the world changing event would be amazing hypercool virtual reality, but it turned out to be email. I mean, really, even if VR worked, who would have time for it beyond a few video games each week, and what would it change in your life? But how often to you communicate with someone else? Compare and contrast.

Same with robots. The world's most successful robot is a puck-shaped vacuum cleaner.

The next big technological advance will be something where you don't notice the technology. It will just spread until you wonder to yourself "I wonder what ever happened to cable television/flat tires/floppy disks?".

Re:Innovation when you're not looking

[kabocox]

The next big technological advance will be something where you don't notice the technology. It will just spread until you wonder to yourself "I wonder what ever happened to cable television/flat tires/floppy disks?".

This makes me think of kitchen gadets. O.k. everyone needs a dishwasher, stove/oven, refrigerator, and micowave, but then what else do you need? A wok, blender, toaster, coffee maker? Don't get me started on all those spoons and other sticks with odd shaped ends. (Oh and a good potato peeler.) None of those were world changing to us, but those that we actually use do make us happier.

What I want some one to build is fly zapper and a bird zapper. I want a laser to detect any flying things in my house and burn them rather than my wife or I having to manually kill gnats or flys. I'd also love a version that tracks and kills birds that dare to poop on my car.

Re:Innovation when you're not looking

[Eli Gottlieb]

All real advances of technology are the result of changing ordinary everyday things because those are the things people do all the time, and a little improvement has a big effect. I'm not astroturfing: that statement just screams "iPhone", or at least "highly computerized, software-platform mobile phone with excellent user interface".

Because why do I need a separate date-book, P.D.A., cell phone, portable video-game console, and digital-audio player? Eventually every personal communication or organization activity will be yet another function performed in software (hopefully free software) on an easy-to-use portable device that connects wirelessly to whatever network necessary.

Why it matters

[Punk CPA]

The author seems to have missed the whole point of innovation. Adopting a new technology and successfully integrating it into a business model is what drives capitalism. The capitalist who can do this avoids the situation of producing a commodity. He gains a competitive advantage, either in distribution (Wal-Mart vs. K-Mart), production efficiency (Toyota vs. GM, US farms vs. 3rd world subsistence farmers), or by product differentiation (Intel's CPU business vs. the RAM business it abandoned). When the competition starts to close the gap, you need to do it again. In the aggregate, people produce more stuff with less raw material. Go back and read Joseph Schumpeter on creative destruction. There's a reason we're better off than our peasant ancestors.

Re:Why it matters

[DeepHurtn!]

It seems to me that the accumulation of capital through the purchasing of labour power is the driving force of capitalism. All those corporations you mentioned wouldn't exist without the premise that workers sell their labour and do not retain ownership of the product of that labour. Capitalism is fundamentally a set of social relations. All wealth is, in the final analysis, the product of human labour (NOT some abstract, metaphysical category like "competitive advantage" or "the market").

Re:Why it matters

[Watson Ladd]

Capitalism does not depend on innovation. It depends on exploitation. Because the capitalist isn't the guy making the innovation, but the boss of the guy who does the work. I agree with your point about innovation being the reason we live beyond the ripe old age of 35.

Re:Why it matters

[Punk CPA]

To the commenters who espouse the labor theory of value, your economics are out of date. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx tried to make this work, but it simply fails to explain how goods and services are exchanged. Think about it: if it was labor that made something valuable, I should be able to order all the parts for a Ford truck, laboriously assemble it in my garage, and sell it for 100 times what the car dealer down the street is asking. Things don't work that way. The search for a theory of inherent value based on the input of capital, labor, or raw materials is over.

The best fit of theory and reality is currently a combination of marginal utility, opportunity cost, and the Austrian theory of price as information. Put simply, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If the price in the market for something seems good to you, you either buy it (price is low compared to what else you could do with your money) or produce it (price is high compared to alternative uses for your labor or capital).

Exploitation of labor? Give me a break. People flock to cities for work because it beats working on a farm. You need massive amounts of capital to acquire good farmland, equipment, and supplies. Alternatively, you can scratch out a living on a small patch and watch your children starve in a bad year.

If accumulation of capital is a result of the exploitation of labor, why are workers in the highly-developed capitalist countries the most well-off? And please, don't go all Paul Baran on me (the idea that the immiseration of the proletariat has simply been off-shored). The countries most enmeshed with Western capitalism are precisely the ones that have improved their living standards, GDP, life expectancy, and almost any other available quality-of-life metric.

Marxism is religion in flimsy disguise.

Re:I don't take advice about technology from write

[cpt kangarooski]

most of them have a bust of Shakespeare hidden somewhere about their apartment

Well, they need some sort of way to open the hidden door to their secret lairs.

Nice job modding this

[The_mad_linguist]

Really says something about the /. community.

Re:Nice job modding this

[SadGeekHermit]

It's cool; it's back up to "insightful".

Redemption!

Re:I don't take advice about technology from write

[westlake]

most of them have a bust of Shakespeare hidden somewhere about their apartment, and consider him to be the sine qua non of literature, even though he was actually his era's equivalent of a Hollywood screenwriter. If he was alive today, he'd be doing Buffy episodes.

Which is another way of saying he was a shrewd and innovative craftsman of popular entertainments.

Re:And they have it wrong

[WindBourne]

Even the V2 that he picks on is the start of rocketry which absolutely has changed society. Not only that, had it not been so late in the war, it would have turned it all around. In fact, most of our bombs are not bombs, but small rockets.

Then to add injury to insult (his lack of thought), he tries to compare the costs of planes and tanks in terms of contribution, and does not realize that those MADE huge innovations in the previous war. Even the jet plane that the Germans made would have made a difference if they had been made earlier.

Always remaking

[the_kanzure]

On a similar note, why does everything need to be re-engineered?

As Feynman put it, "What I cannot create, I do not understand."

Re:I don't take advice about technology from write

[SadGeekHermit]

Oh, I agree. I have a copy of the Collected Works of William Shakespeare myself, right next to my collection of Lovecraft and Poe.

But people deify him; he was just a writer! Making him into some kind of god is just silly. And the idea that nobody since has been his equal is just nutty. I'd rather read Henry Miller any day. Or Kerouac, or Chuck Palahniuk. MUCH more interesting and relevant to my century, you know? :)

Additionally,

[bflynn]

Additionally, innovation serves to renew product life cycles. As products reach the commoditization or decline points of their life span, innovation (either incremental or revolutionary) will differentiate the product again and make move it back to the front of its life. Constant innovation by business means improving and replacing products, so appreciation of existing products is a non-factor.

And this article is a perfect example...

[Alonzo Meatman]

To my mind, the reviewer and author are simply rehashing Jared Diamond's argument that "Invention is the mother of necessity." Of course, I'm not under the impression that Diamond invented this line of argument - in fact, I'm sure it's just as old as the argument that innovation drives technology. Ultimately, the two arguments go hand-in-hand, and one is no more true then the other.

Medicine?

[dpbsmith]

Anyone want to say that innovation in medicine is overrated? I don't think there's very much technologically in common between medicine as it was practiced fifty years ago and as it is today.

I personally know someone who had a heart valve replaced (with a pig valve); several people with hip, knee, and shoulder replacements. Prostate cancer is much less terrifying than it was as little as thirty years ago, thanks to nerve-sparing operative techniques. And think of what endoscopes and laparoscopic surgery have done.

The difference in quality and safety of anesthesia is nothing short of a revolution, made possible not only by new anesthetic agents (propofol instead of ether, anyone) but by pulse-oximetry.

I can't even imagine that a fluoroscope exists any more. And I recently had a "stress-echo" in which the doc was watching the inside of my heart continuously, in real time, in live video, and getting quantitative measurements of blood flow and so forth.

Even "stitches" use completely different materials and technology, and I have a huge, gross, lumpy scar from a childhood operation and a tiny, smooth one from a recent operation to prove it.

There's not much of a palimpsest in the doctor's office. Apart from the stethoscope and the exam table I can't think of much that hasn't changed.

Yes, I wish that all the old antibiotics still worked. Not everything has changed for the better.

Re:I have disdain for you

[grimflick]

Perhaps you have enough integrity to avoid brainwashing - or perhaps you have already succumbed to it. Perhaps you are using the royal "we". I am talking about the unwashed - or unsuspecting - masses who take the pill without critical thought - something you certainly don't lack. Perhaps you should try taking everything without caution for a while? As to parallelisms - you are making one between those who have studied (and understand and respect Rand) and Cultists, which invoked the image or some secret meetings complete with rituals - sounds more like the catholic church than a philosophy class. But seriously - Rand Characters are not so much Cartoons as they are archetypes or stereotypes, and they have usefulness because they provide a reference point for understanding - which you clearly understood! Thank you for acting as a straw man!!

Re:If we don't innovate, we're dead

[westlake]

For instance, the point behind the geodesic dome was that it enclosed the maximum volume with the least materials.

This notion is at least as old as The Octagon House, A Home For All, published by Orson Squire Fowler in 1848.

But in residential construction it sucks. Big time.

The octagon brings light and air to the central core, but interior living spaces take on very odd shapes and sizes. The roof will always leak because its design and construction is an exercise in frustration even to the original builder.

User adoption

[athloi]

I don't think the writer is arguing against innovation, but his point is that until there is a use for an innovation and people are ready to use it, it will languish. Among other things, his argument explains why the technically-superior Betamax was replaced by VHS and why the technically-superior Amiga lost out to the Macintosh. The technology was better, but the use wasn't there.

All of us who use or develop technology can learn from this by keeping our focus centered on the practical. What group of users will apply this technology toward what ends under what circumstances? As a developer/technical writer, I am force to think of the user perspective constantly, and it has caused helpful changes in my technique.

Like most books, this is probably an overcorrection, a "the sky isn't blue, but a shade of purple, OMGWTF" where a truly scientific viewpoint might be more subtly stated. However, that's just selling books for ya. I think there's a good valid point here the open source movement and any developer can't afford to miss however.

innovation != invention

[nanosquid]

Strictly speaking, "innovation" refers to the successful introduction of new technology into a market or community, not the invention of the technology. So, in a certain sense, companies like Apple and Microsoft are "innovators" even though they are far less frequently inventors.

The consequence of this is that we should probably not value innovation very highly; innovation is frequently achieved through marketing, business strategy, and copycat products, and the purpose and consequence of innovation is frequently not to help people, but to make more money. The people we should reward are inventors and risk takers, not "innovators".

Thomas Pynchon

[Darth Cider]

The author quotes Thomas Pynchon, who in 1984 published a much more interesting piece on technology in the New York Times. Is it O.K. to Be a Luddite?"

But we now live, we are told, in the Computer Age. What is the outlook for Luddite sensibility? Will mainframes attract the same hostile attention as knitting frames once did? I really doubt it. Writers of all descriptions are stampeding to buy word processors. Machines have already become so user-friendly that even the most unreconstructed of Luddites can be charmed into laying down the old sledgehammer and stroking a few keys instead. Beyond this seems to be a growing consensus that knowledge really is power, that there is a pretty straightforward conversion between money and information, and that somehow, if the logistics can be worked out, miracles may yet be possible.

I think he misses the point...

[blahplusplus]

Technology is the end result of our problem solving which is a subset of our brain's survival routines. Just think if the sun was say (for convenience of making my point) going to explode in 200 years, you'd definitely see vigorous redirection of resources in finding a way to make it to outer space at any cost or *else*. Technology is simply a way to use our current environment to change or manage our current environment in some way. Medicine is all about changing and managing your bodies environment to keep it alive for as long as is technically possible. Lastly even the body can be viewed itself as technology, what are cells, if not high tech descendent's of ancient designs.

Our quest for Innovation or invention is simply searching a matter/energy combinatorial space so that we can control our environment as in new ways instead of it controlling us, medicine is all about repealing natural selection for instance, where we intelligently intervene and make obsolete natural selection.

All inventions or innovations are combinations of previous knowledge/know-how and... the critical aspect: Foresight and imagination. Inventions mean little if one doesn't have the foresight and imagination to know how to turn it into an earth shattering technology or see how disparate smaller technologies fit together into a unified whole. Many technologies and innovations fall by the wayside until they are sufficiently advanced enough to integrate into something useful (i.e. think of how big/expensive old cell/wireless phones were).

Re:And they have it wrong

[AKAImBatman]

Even the V2 that he picks on is the start of rocketry which absolutely has changed society.

Indeed. America and Russia's first space programs consisted of nothing more than launching the V-2 rockets we had captured from Germany. (Thus why the iconic "rocket" image always looks like a V-2.)

Not only that, had it not been so late in the war, it would have turned it all around.

The V-2 would have been combined with the nuclear bomb if Germany had succeeded in their research before the end of the war. Thus giving Nazi Germany the ultimate delivery technology for nuclear strikes. If that had happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. In fact, I would imagine that the United Kingdom would no longer exist (let's just call it, "United Smoking Hole in the Ground") and the US would have been dissolved in favor of the United Nazi Republic.

20 year poor economy

[xzvf]

The Japanese just had the equivilant of a 20 year recession, with almost no growth. There was a time when the Japanese economy was half that of the United States, now it's just over a quarter. The Japanese have a good solid western ecomomy, but they haven't had significant growth above inflation since the 70's, very similar to Europe. The United States has had a few minor setbacks, but has grown 1-2% above inflation steadily for 50 years. During that peroid we've seen under developed nations grow in double digits and close the gap with the USA for a time. Soviets (by raping East Europe) and Western Europe in the 50's and 60's, Japan in the 60's and 70's, and China now. But they've always dropped back to normal rates when the void filled. Western Europe once had an economy equal to the United States, now all of the EU barely keeps up. Maybe China is the country to challenge. The industrial revolution gave England an advantage that lasted nearly 100 years, until the United States and Germany industrialized fully. The US advantage isn't written in stone forever, but the steady growth of the US hasn't been matched yet.

Re:20 year poor economy

[mako1138]

Back in the 70s, analyzing Japan's rapid ascent was all the vogue. And when their economy tanked, figuring out the cause was the goal. Upon further examination, rapid-development economies are never completely "western" and free-market -- they depend heavily on government support and guidance. And that includes the United States in a previous century.

China is successful right now, but so are the other "Asian tigers" that followed Japan's model: Taiwan and South Korea.

Re:And they have it wrong

[nelsonal]

Scud missiles are the same design as the old V-2.

agreed 100%

[circletimessquare]

except you're not talking about genetic evolution anymore. you're talking about memetic evolution, the evolution of ideas. which is of course, new to the human species, and a new realm of evolution, completely separate from any judgment for or against slime molds and horseshoe crabs. human beings straddle the worlds of memetic evolution and genetic evolution. in the world of genetic evolution, according to judgment of genetic evolutionary success, human beings are equivalent to horseshoe crabs and slime molds. meanwhile, in the realm of memetic evolution, you have luddites, and nihilists, and fundamentalists, and anarachists, etc. no horseshoe crab or slime mold need apply. and human culture is the framework, social groups of human beings, and the retention of ideas across generations. individual humans can create ideas and contribute to ideas, but they aren't the means of propagation, retention, and spread. also, the goals are all different between memetic and genetic evolution, although competition for success is the same, what "success" means in each realm is different

Re:agreed 100%

[DamnStupidElf]

except you're not talking about genetic evolution anymore. you're talking about memetic evolution, the evolution of ideas. which is of course, new to the human species, and a new realm of evolution, completely separate from any judgment for or against slime molds and horseshoe crabs. human beings straddle the worlds of memetic evolution and genetic evolution. in the world of genetic evolution, according to judgment of genetic evolutionary success, human beings are equivalent to horseshoe crabs and slime molds. meanwhile, in the realm of memetic evolution, you have luddites, and nihilists, and fundamentalists, and anarachists, etc. no horseshoe crab or slime mold need apply. and human culture is the framework, social groups of human beings, and the retention of ideas across generations. individual humans can create ideas and contribute to ideas, but they aren't the means of propagation, retention, and spread. also, the goals are all different between memetic and genetic evolution, although competition for success is the same, what "success" means in each realm is different

If the genetic descendants of humans escape the death of the solar system, then genetic evolution has selected for them. If humans take horseshoe crabs and slime molds with them, then they'll continue to be just as genetically successful, otherwise they'll go the way of the dodo and passenger pigeon and be genetically inferior, in large part due to their lack of intelligence; e.g. their lack of ability to survive in competition with intelligent species. Not all species go extinct because of more intelligent species, but a fair number do. It's just the way nature works, and intelligence is merely another property that is selected for. The only effect intelligence has on genetic evolution is that evolution occurs faster for more intelligent species. Genetic engineering, eugenics, and genocide are all forms of genetic selection that are made possible only by intelligence. Not everything that comes from intelligence is good, but it definitely has an impact on genetics.

The definition of success is the same for both genetic and memetic evolution: If you (gene or meme) are present in the environment, you have not yet lost. To exist is to succeed. In fact, evolution can be defined in this way over any variable set of objects. The evolution of dinner plates exists, despite plates being inanimate objects. The smooth, pretty ones that are easier to clean and look nice haven't lost yet, while the rough, partially unbaked clay ones are pretty much extinct, although we can find fossils of them. Memes are no different, they're just thoughts migrating through minds, living and dying according to their ability to reproduce themselves in other brains. That evolution is multileveled does not mean that genetics and memetics are separate, just that there is a spectrum of information encodings from genes to memes that are interdependent. In the end, everything is just information anyway.

What about the rest?

[Moraelin]

You know, everyone seems to be focused on the V2 and on "what if the Germans put an A bomb on one?" scenarios. And there's nothing wrong with that, as such, it's indeed valid points by themselves. But IMHO it still misses the more direct refutal of such "innovation didn't ever do much" luddite whines: what about the innovations that _did_ make a huge difference to the war? E.g.,

1. Gyro Gunsights. It's something that most people don't even know existed, because it wasn't hyped much. Everyone knows about the atom bomb or about the Norden sights (also an analog computer, btw) but this thing may have done more than the atom bomb and the V2 combined. By the end of the WW2 it gave the Allies a _massive_ advantage in air combat. It was mounted not only on fighters, but on bomber turrets too, and helped seal the fate of the Luftwaffe in a major way.

Basically it's an analog computer that shows you where to shoot to hit a moving target with uncanny accuracy. The fact is, estimating lead is very difficult even for veteran pilots, and this thing let even a moderately trained newbie shoot better than some of the aces.

And BTW, another analog computer was used by anti-aircraft artillery units, and helped shoot down a hell of a lot of V-1's.

2. The Colossus computer used by the UK to break the German codes. Frankly, knowing where the Germans are and what they're up to, might have been _the_ one factor that affected the war the most.

3. In the same vein: RADAR. The "Battle Of Britain" was massively influenced by the fact that the British had early warning of the incoming planes. A lot more German pilots and later V-1 bombs were shot down because they got detected early by RADAR, than if everyone were to rely on the chance of spotting them from another airplane.

It also claimed a lot of German submarines, as they tended to surface at night to recharge their batteries or move around. An airplane equipped with radar and a spotlight (the Leigh Light) would close in by radar, light the spotlight, then bomb the submarine to pieces. So efficient was the combination, that by the end of 42 most submarines actually preferred to surface by day, so they can at least see the aircraft and maybe fight back.

4. SONAR. Without it, everyone would have been literally blind against submarines. To illustrate how important it was, even a short interval of blindness, as the destroyer passed over the submarine to launch the depth charges, often allowed the submarine to change direction and escape unharmed. That's why such weapons as the Hedgehog and Squid were developped: so you can shoot at the submarine before it enters your blind spot.

5. Want something that would have changed the face of the war even more radically, if it didn't come too late? R4M AA rockets. Germans eventually packed batteries of 24 55mm AA rockets on their airplanes, that could tear a bomber apart from 600m to 1km distance. Safely beyond the range of the machineguns on those bombers.

They didn't need any guidance, btw, since the idea was to _saturate_ the zone with a salvo of rockets. The simple natural spread of the salvo ensured that at least 2-3 would hit the bomber you're aiming at, and the 55mm warhead was more powerful than any gun you could put on an airplane.

An anti-tank version was also designed.

It also was the basis for the US FFAR pods.

Etc, etc, etc.

Briefly whoever can honestly think that innovation and technology were overrated in winning WW2... well, they can ask the Chinese how well their spearmen fared against Japanese tanks. (Not all Chinese divisions were that badly equipped, but, yes, some were still equipped literally to medieval stan

well said

[circletimessquare]

or like the videophone. ever since the 1960s i think people have been heralding the emergence of people using video as well as audio in telephone calls. you see it in science fiction all the time, from blade runner to star trek

except for one small problem: it doesn't do the job better. you just need audio. adding video makes it less useful and more complex. and so people keep trying to introduce the videophone again and again thinking its the next big thing. and it just never happens. because progress != more complex just for the sake of more complex. the added benefits of videophone aren't worth it, and are in fact in some ways steps backwards, not forwards

you are correct

[circletimessquare]

like most words with complex meanings, context is everything. and it is possible to read the words i wrote and think i don't believe in progress at all. when in fact, i believe in progress and it is most definitely real, in the ways you describe, and it is important to assert that so i am not seen as a nihilist or be seen providing comfort to nihilistic thoughts

it is just a matter of what you mean by progress, so i shouldn't have dismantled the idea of progress in what i wrote, but only the one narrow specific stilted idea of progress a some sort of mythical driving force, rather than what progress is: the record of man trying to improve his world and where he succeeded

Re:you are correct

[Red Flayer]

Makes sense to me, although I tend to lean towards the nihilist side ;)

Points Schmoints?

[sconeu]

Points, schmoints.

What does Marty Bergen have to do with this?

The thing that was new about Fuller ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have known for a very long time that a sphere contains the most volume with the least area and therefore material.

The geodesic dome was a bear to construct and did indeed leak most of the time. Not all of Fuller's experiments were completely successful. On the other hand, he was one of the first to point out that we had to start thinking about conserving resources. He also pointed out that as we acquire knowledge, we can make do with less and less material. Innovation, in that light, is crucial to human survival.

As part of the construction of the dome, Fuller relied on separating tension and compression members. Tension members can be quite thin because they don't have to resist flexing. As a wild assed guess, I would say that Fuller's dome probably weighed half what a more conventionally constructed dome would weigh.

Re:If we don't innovate, we're dead

[Hatta]

In the 1800s, economists predicted that society was doomed because we were sure to run out of the materials we depend on for survival. That didn't happen because we innovated and found ways to do without materials that might become scarse.

Correction: That hasn't happened yet.

Answers to yer questions here.

[Medievalist]

Q: "What did Mr. Gatling invent?"

A: an improved version of the Puckle gun (the first machine gun, invented 1718). The Gatling gun, invented in the 1860s, incorporates the same improvements in technology that other guns did over the same century and a half - better machining, true rifling (which is even better than square bullets) and of course the elimination of the flintlock in favor of percussion caps. It keeps the multiple barrels and crank of the Puckle gun but has a phenomenally higher rate of fire, especially when it was redesigned for metallic cartridges after the War Between the States. The Gatling gun was intended to be a terror weapon, though, so it doesn't have the roguish charm of the Puckle gun ("round bullets for use against Christians, and square bullets for use against Turks").

Q: "What did Mr. Oppenheimer invent?"

A: an organizational method that simultaneously satisfied the needs of goal-driven military hierarchs and curiosity-driven scientists and eventually produced two different atomic bombs (atomic bombs, of course, were invented by Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard in the 1930s - he filed a British patent application for the atomic bomb in 1934). Today we call this method "herding cats".

I really doubt most people know this stuff. People around here smoke dope while skiing naked, y'know... :)

Re: And the problem with scientists themselves

[bargainsale]

There's obviously truth in what you say, but what I mean is that the basic principles of all real scientific endeavour, what separates real science from pseudoscience, is not considered to be part of "general knowledge" in our society. In my own line (medicine) it's pretty easy to find lots of examples of researchers whose egos have got in the way of their research, not to mention outright falsification and corruption. But in the end science progresses if and only if it is humble before the facts. What I'm saying is not that scientists are all paragons of intellectual virtue, but that people (like many journalists) who would be regarded in our liberal-arts orientated society as well educated frequently have a view of science which is just magical thinking dressed up in long words. The fundamental problem (IMHO) is not so much that they don't know the basics of science, but that they really don't think that any such knowledge is necessary or even desirable except for a little clique of morlocks. I think that's a recipe for disaster in a democratic society faced by complex and pressing scientific questions. As a specific example here in the UK we saw children put at risk by a major drop in immunisation following baseless scare stories about MMR vaccine; but you can make your own list ...

A-bombs

[Alomex]

Similarly, considering the cost of the atomic bomb against the conventional weaponry that could have been bought for the same money, it is not difficult to imagine what thousands more B-29s, one-third more tanks or five times more artillery, or some other military output, would have done to Allied fighting power.

By the time the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US had enough capacity to produce about an A-bomb a day. Indeed, one of the reasons it took two bombs before the Japanese surrendered is that they very much doubted America had access to more than one. When the second bomb was dropped in rapid succession the Japanese reckoned (quite correctly) that many more were on the way.

Re:A-bombs

[westlake]

By the time the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US had enough capacity to produce about an A-bomb a day.

Not true.

"By the end of 1945 three plutonium devices had been constructed at Los Almos -- and two had already been detonated." The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History

Re:A-bombs

[Alomex]

If you print the entire paragraph as it is, instead of your misleading selective quoting, it supports my account and disproves yours:

First, it says "be the end of August 1945". Second, since the bomb over Hiroshima was not a plutonium device this tells us that the third bomb was ready by the end of August. Lastly, the sentence just before the one you quote reads: "From April to May alone, plutonium production increased five-fold. June production was even better, as was July." As you can see the entire system had been designed to produce bombs in great quantities, and it was ramping up to that end.

Why are you so sure of that?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Technology is the end result of our problem solving which is a subset of our brain's survival routines. Just think if the sun was say (for convenience of making my point) going to explode in 200 years, you'd definitely see vigorous redirection of resources in finding a way to make it to outer space at any cost or *else*.

Why are you so sure of that?

Here's an alternative scenario: when every person and group realizes that their coping with each other's conflicting interests has ceased to be for the indefinite future, and instead has a definite endpoint, all such cooperation will stop immediately, and massive all-out conflict will ensue.

Please note that I do not actually claim to know that that would happen. I just propose it because it is a different, no less plausible brand of sociobiological bullshit that the one you're so certain about ("the brain's survival routines"? who made you a neuroscientist?).

Or, in short: stop thinking that you know so much.

Re:Why are you so sure of that?

[blahplusplus]

"Why are you so sure of that?"

Because it's in their best rational interest to attempt to survive. Sure human beings have a long history of being stupid but think of all people (millions) that you never here about that did not want war, or suffering, etc. Many people throughout history have been totally powerless. History is just as much marketing, lies and myth as it is "truth". Maybe you want to believe all human beings are necessarily degenerate, lustful, selfish creatures.

From someone who supports (or runs) adequacy.net and has articles like "dealing with communism in the workplace", and see's daycare centers as "liberal slaughterhoues" for childrends minds. I'd have to ask the same. Someone who believes in christianity is already not mentally well put together, see Mathew 8: 30-34, any god that belives in demons or that they cause mental illness is certainl *insane* and non existant.

"Here's an alternative scenario: when every person and group realizes that their coping with each other's conflicting interests has ceased to be for the indefinite future, and instead has a definite endpoint, all such cooperation will stop immediately, and massive all-out conflict will ensue."

Possible but people already have something to deal with of that magnitude: Their own death. The only difference is the cause - natural breakdown vs. star exploding.

"Please note that I do not actually claim to know that that would happen. I jut propose it because it is a different, no less plausible brand of sociobiological bullshit that the one you're so certain about ("the brain's survival routines"? who made you a neuroscientist?).

Or, in short: stop thinking that you know so much."

I think you are just perturbed because you believe the nature of man is evil, while it's not so cut and dry as you'd like to think.

Money quote?

[jc42]

So WTF is a "money quote"? I've been seeing this phrase a lot lately, but even google can't find a definition. The best google does is find several pages with (mostly funny) quotes about money. But this particular quote has nothing to do with money. So why was it called a "money quote".

Inquiring minds want to know about this latest fad in crazy English ...

a total Dvorak job

[Kooshman]

To broaden the objections made earlier, the article is total shenanigans. The examples are blatantly ignorant when they're not just idle drivel.

He makes one valid point-- that in a lot of cases, old technology is pretty good at solving the problem. When is this the case? When you're solving an old problem. Yes, we still deliver water in pipes, cut food with knives, and cook with radiant energy. And yes, there are lots of people saying we're going to live in magical fairy land in twenty years where blah blah blah, and in the end such predictions are drivel of the same sort that this article is.

Let's look at that kitchen again. So I pick up a new knife, which looks like kives have looked since the Bronze Age. But I got to the store in a technologically advanced transportation device, as did all the material in it. It was scanned with a computer that communicates to a massive computer system tracking the sales and distribution of materials. New orders were sent over communication systems all around the world, to factories with high degrees of automation and quality control due to... more technological innovation.

Yes, we still read print on paper. That can now be printed at the snap of your fingers. We pick up produce from the local store, but it might have come from the opposite side of the earth before it spoiled. He can't see how things have changed because he's refused to look at it.

And the WWII argument is plain old BS. It was a true war-technology linchpin. The developments made before and during that war have set the standard for basically all that has come after it. True subs, mechanized cavalry/infantry, aerial bombing, jet airplanes, the assault rifle(!). I mean, just look at that last one. What army today doesn't issue just about every soldier some variant of the assault rifle? And the V2 rocket was plain ig'nant. Are you telling me guided missle technology hasn't massively altered the landscape of war? This guy obviously stuck his head in the sand during the assault on Iraq.

So, yeah, plenty of complaints against people who claim New Technology X will cure cancer, solve world hunger, do your laundry, and get you a date on Saturday. But It would help that such complaint-bringers know a bit more of what they are talking about.

Palimpsest - delete the article

[skeptictank]

and use the space for a Britney Spears update.

Exactly

[Colin Smith]

It's invention which changes the world, not innovation. Broadband is a world changing technology, the computer is a world changing technology.

In the past, the pneumatic tyre, the internal combustion engine, the gas turbine etc.

Thing is, invention on it's own isn't enough. There are plenty of inventions languishing on the scrap heap. The key to the world changing part is economics.

Re:Exactly

[nanosquid]

Thing is, invention on it's own isn't enough. There are plenty of inventions languishing on the scrap heap. The key to the world changing part is economics.

Yes, but once you have an invention that potentially changes the world, with few exceptions, the economic part can be done by many people and is almost automatic.

In different words, people who take care of the economic part of making an invention happen get their financial rewards directly from the market. It's the inventors that often get screwed and go unrewarded. The patent system was supposed to help with that, but it ended up screwing inventors over even more.

Pneumatic Tubes

[shplorb]

I was amazed to read about the pneumatic tube network that was developed in Manhattan in the 1890's and how it was speculated that eventually people would be able to travel via them. (Which is the whole point of the article - everyone hypes up new developments with bullshit that almost never turns out to be true and it's always something that nobody saw coming that "revolutionises" things.)

Anyway, what I'm really wondering is if that is where the Futurama guys got their idea for the pneumatic tubes in New New York from? =]

that's very deep

[circletimessquare]

but it's still valuable to talk about memetics versus genetics

i mean, both electricians and opticians work in the realm of electromagnetism, but that more top level understanding of things does not add any value to each professional's particluar realm of endeavour. christ, a cosmologist and a geneticist work in the same field, science, but so fucking what

so don't get too top level. there is no added value in tying it all together, unless you merely want to ruminate philosphically on deep connections without any hope of practical application

Re:that's very deep

[DamnStupidElf]

but it's still valuable to talk about memetics versus genetics

What "versus"? Recognizing the common elements between different aspects of reality is where the big discoveries get made, not by neatly packaging genetics and ellipses and fields and linear algebra and statistics in their own neat little boxes so they don't mix. Using the language of one field to talk about another implies more usefulness in the language than having to make up extensive jargon for every subfield of science. As long as it's precise and accurate, generic language is preferable to specification. Yes, memetics are not exactly genetics, but they are quite similar.

i mean, both electricians and opticians work in the realm of electromagnetism, but that more top level understanding of things does not add any value to each professional's particluar realm of endeavour. christ, a cosmologist and a geneticist work in the same field, science, but so fucking what

You wouldn't have data projectors or CCDs if the optics guys and the electronics guys didn't get together. If cosmologists find extraterrestrial life, they will almost certainly work with geneticists, and when we want to send life to other planets the geneticists had better consult some cosmologists.

so don't get too top level. there is no added value in tying it all together, unless you merely want to ruminate philosphically on deep connections without any hope of practical application

My point is that it doesn't matter *what* mechanism influences genetics, it's still genetic evolution. Whether it's intelligence, environment, or the end of the universe, it's still genetic evolution. I don't think intelligence is purely genetic, so that's not the issue. When I was comparing genetic survival, I was simply pointing out that human genes have a higher likelihood of being around after the death of the solar system than horseshoe crab or slime mold genes. That's what genetic evolution is about, population densities of genes over time. I'm just making speculations about population densities in the future. It's really that simple.