• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Less innovation from 1950-2012 than 1900-1950.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally Posted by yottabit
Living in the US, it's really not hard to support yourself unless you have frivolous expenses

You realize there are millions of people without jobs and millions who can't afford to own a house or education or health care right, whether they have jobs or not?
Obviously yotta is the newest 1%er paid Republican shill to join in this election cycle.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
It seems to me that innovation peaked a long time ago and has been rapidly declining ever since that time. The 2000's were weak.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,326
2,159
126
I am surprised no one mentioned the effect that two major wars had on innovation. Fighting a war where your continued existence can depend on having technological advantage is a great motivator
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,093
3,628
126
The internet was a pretty major breakthrough.

Communication is essential, even if most is just trash, the important parts are still there.

Computers continue to evolve.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I am surprised no one mentioned the effect that two major wars had on innovation. Fighting a war where your continued existence can depend on having technological advantage is a great motivator
War decreases innovation.
The 2000's were weak.
I agree, although Devil May Cry came out in 2001 and that was one of my favorite games ever. It seems like there were more innovations in 1999 than there were in Y2K.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,042
2,521
126
I disagree, because there were a lot of things invented in the 1800s as well. There are new things invented every century, so I think it's a fair comparison. What about a cure for AIDS? What about all the questionable inventions like vaccines and lossy compression? Vaccines are questionable because they've caused some problems and it can't be conclusively proven that they have prevented more deaths than problems they have caused. Also, people may have been suffering from a reverse placebo effect meaning the vaccines may have been unnecessary because something else harmful was being done to human bodies. I think that before vaccines came out, there should've been more studies looking into alternatives as well as trying to find the roots of certain problems and eliminating them if possible.
I'm always amazed that you somehow find new ways to top already stupid posts. :thumbsup::thumbsup: for your trolling.

Anyway, to rebut some of your post (which is frankly a waste of time, but what isn't around here?):
1) Cure for AIDS? How easy do you think molecular biology is? I do this kind of stuff on a daily basis. It isn't easy. Hell, even if you know exactly how something works (eg, each step involved in the HIV infection process), you still need the other half, which is finding molecules which can disrupt that life-cycle without killing people at the same time. Again, not a very easy thing to do.

2) Vaccines? Really? You're going to go there? Millions of people were crippled or killed by childhood diseases like measles and polio before those vaccinations were invented. How many have died from vaccinations? Please be specific, because I HIGHLY doubt it would be even close to the number of lives destroyed in a single year from one of the above diseases before the advent of vaccines.

3) What is a "reverse placebo effect"? Please provide real, scientific documentation. How can a 2 year old not get measles by some sort of placebo effect? They surely get sick, just not measles. They have no idea what exactly those shots are preventing.

4) What do you think a vaccine is doing? It's treating the root of the problem by preventing it in the first place.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
War decreases innovation.
I agree here, but in many cases it did work. But I think that it is highly overstated how much it provides by factors. We have hit a plateau. (personally I think it is apathy/not training young people in mechanics and electronics as hobbies, fostering young people to tinker. (good luck tinkering in a society that makes only disposable junk focused on profit motive instead of quality)

But then also our society has no competition anymore. Who are we competing with now?

The capitalists have turned to pitting us against one another again since they have no new market to exploit and expand into on a nationalist sense, and sadly (for them) on the religious dividing front the few muslim headcases hiding in caves is nowhere near the paranoia they can sow from a actual threat like the USSR provided for them to keep the corporate/military contractor welfare pig troths full.

Been reading selective Chomsky writings again eh? You would think one would catch on sooner or later.

But then no one is as blind as one who refuses to see more then they wish.
 
Last edited:

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
It's what you get when you let the 1% rule.
Can you please just sit back and think about what you have just said. The 1% of what? Why dont we get pissed at the 1% of the 99%, instead of the 100% of the 1% of the 100%? Why do you have to single out people the way you do? Unless you truly believe that ONLY 1% of the population has a fair amount of money saved, and that the other 99% are barely scraping by by sucking them dry.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
It's what you get when you let the 1% rule.



Already know greed rules all
Yet you continue to try and accumulate instead of being where you are.

Rough looking in the mirror and seeing what you profound to spew against
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
4) What do you think a vaccine is doing? It's treating the root of the problem by preventing it in the first place.
Polio may have disappeared not because of the vaccines but because of less metals in food.
3) What is a "reverse placebo effect"? Please provide real, scientific documentation. How can a 2 year old not get measles by some sort of placebo effect? They surely get sick, just not measles. They have no idea what exactly those shots are preventing.
When I said "reverse placebo effect" I meant that the vaccines may not be doing what they're advertised to do.
1) Cure for AIDS? How easy do you think molecular biology is? I do this kind of stuff on a daily basis. It isn't easy. Hell, even if you know exactly how something works (eg, each step involved in the HIV infection process), you still need the other half, which is finding molecules which can disrupt that life-cycle without killing people at the same time. Again, not a very easy thing to do.
It would be difficult, so it would be a breakthrough invention.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,326
2,159
126
War decreases innovation.
Do they? How do you know? (Not trying to argue but I have always heard and read that they did)

I would think the typically massive influx of money and focus on rapid development (often at the expense of cost and initial efficiency) would be in war's favor
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Do they? How do you know? (Not trying to argue but I have always heard and read that they did) I would think the typically massive influx of money and focus on rapid development (often at the expense of cost and initial efficiency) would be in war's favor
Good point... no can really make a conclusion one way or the other and that's why I don't really care about utility as much as ethics. However, it would make more sense to me that war would decrease innovation because it restricts the market in many ways as production simply subsidizes destruction in war.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY