Technological advancement since the moon landing

[Robor]

Fart pipes turning 110hp econo-boxes into 500hp ricer-racers
Grillz
Crocs

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
It's also obvious some people didn't read the original poster's original post either. Better versions of crap we already had in the 60's is not what this thread is about. Improving on existing technology is a given, I'm talking about game-changing innovation here.

You've been given about half a dozen examples?

How many of the things listed are as innovative or revolutionary to the average person as deciding whether or not to have a baby by popping a pill? Or having a library of nearly all human knowlege and massive information storage at your finger tips? Or even using radio waves to cook your pre-made dinner in seconds? Look, I'm glad we have the things we have today. All those convienence gizmo's are nice to have. And medical advancements are helping keep people alive longer. But the very same things that were killing people in the 60's are still killing them today. And all those convenience devices are just that, for convienence. Basically now, just like then, we wake up from our alarm clocks, drive our cars to work, watch TV when we get home, use our lawnmowers on the weekend, etc. The only real difference is now we check our e-mail while our dinner is in the microwave. I just think we should be further along than we are nearly 40 years after having made it to the moon.

Did you mention the internet initially? I don't think you did, and your OP is edited. Anyways, in addition to that we have cell phones for one. Having the ability to (for the most part) go anywhere in the civilized world and contact any other person on the planet with a few keystrokes is flat out amazing. The entire way people plan their day, the way they interact with one another has been fundamentally changed by this sort of immediate access. It's not convenience, at this point this sort of instantaneous communication is becoming necessary for businesses to effectively function.

The personal computer is a total game changer, even without the internet. It has allowed, through software, the emulation or replacement of legions of other devices. Cell phones and PCs, both developed after the moon landings, have had far more effect on the average person's life then being able to cook dinner 20 minutes faster.

The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

HAM radios were able to "call" telephones decades ago. Before cell phones were even licensed by the FCC my dad was "calling" people from his hand held. Cell phones are not an innovation, they are a refinement.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian


The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

No, not at all. By that logic transportation was always around, but the airplane just let you do it faster. Ie. convenience. I think you would be hard pressed to make an argument that the airplane was not a game-changer. With the internet we always had the same amount of information available, now we just transmit it faster over wires. That's just convenience. See? Anything can be relegated to a mere convenience if you want to, you have to look at what the technology has done to our society.

First of all if you wanted anything approaching long range coverage you were talking about using HF systems in the 1960's. The fact that they are based on the same principles (somewhat) doesn't mean anything. It's like the difference between the huge punch card computers and the modern PC. No normal person had effective HF communication (don't try HAM radio on me) If you wanted anything approaching some sort of wide ranging, even slightly reliable comms that means huge antennas along with huge, heavy, and hideously expensive radio equipment. Then, if you were lucky you could push a signal a few hundred miles or so. (on a good day and in good conditions you could bounce one much further... but that is largely dependent upon luck). With a cell phone you get instantaneous and reliable connection to nearly any civilized place on earth. This changes everything.

If you look at how you behaved when you were younger (I'm assuming you remember a time without cell phones) I'm sure you remember how annoying it could be to get into contact with people. You had to plan your day around being at home certain times if you were waiting on an important phone call. Groups of people were hard to get together without a lot of planning or coordination. If anything went wrong, nobody knew. Businesses had people tethered to their offices where they could be reliably reached instead of other areas where they could be doing something productive. Now you can organize, communicate, dispense information, and change plans with large groups of people dispersed over hundreds or thousands of miles in seconds. GAME CHANGER. In short, people interact with each other in a fundamentally different manner due to the ubiquity of instant communication. The cell phone made this possible.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

HAM radios were able to "call" telephones decades ago. Before cell phones were even licensed by the FCC my dad was "calling" people from his hand held. Cell phones are not an innovation, they are a refinement.

Yeah he might have been 'calling' people, subject to all sorts of restrictions and limitations that would make widespread adoption impossible.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

HAM radios were able to "call" telephones decades ago. Before cell phones were even licensed by the FCC my dad was "calling" people from his hand held. Cell phones are not an innovation, they are a refinement.

Oh FFS, "refinement?" Did your dad forget to tell you about how much of a bitch that was? There's a reason why people weren't doing it. Provided you could even get a signal with a handheld (unlikely), you could probably drive home and call from there faster than it would take to get connected.
Under your definition of technological "refinement," the moon rocket was no innovation over the discovery of fire.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I agree that cell phones are a vast improvement over what we had, but the bottom line is they are just a convergence and refinement of technology that's nearly half a centruy old. We had phones, we had wireless communication, it was a natural progression to merge them. It was a GIVEN that this would happen. That's not innovation.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I agree that cell phones are a vast improvement over what we had, but the bottom line is they are just a convergence and refinement of technology that's nearly half a centruy old. We had phones, we had wireless communication, it was a natural progression to merge them. It was a GIVEN that this would happen. That's not innovation.

How is the internet an innovation then? We had computers, we had wired computer communication, it was a natural progression to merge them and expand on them. That's not innovation.

EDIT: Oh, and if you see how cell phones work you will see that they work on a VASTLY different scale then radio communication 'a half century old' did. The amount of multiplexing, error correction, etc. involved in getting a real cell network going makes communicating with a HAM radio look like sending smoke signals.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

HAM radios were able to "call" telephones decades ago. Before cell phones were even licensed by the FCC my dad was "calling" people from his hand held. Cell phones are not an innovation, they are a refinement.

Oh FFS, "refinement?" Did your dad forget to tell you about how much of a bitch that was? There's a reason why people weren't doing it. Provided you could even get a signal with a handheld (unlikely), you could probably drive home and call from there faster than it would take to get connected.
Under your definition of technological "refinement," the moon rocket was no innovation over the discovery of fire.

The reason people weren't doing it was because it required a HAM license. The only connection problem he would have was being within range of a tower. Guess what, we still have that problem today with cell phones. Removing a government regulation and adding more towers is hardly technical innovation.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I agree that cell phones are a vast improvement over what we had, but the bottom line is they are just a convergence and refinement of technology that's nearly half a centruy old. We had phones, we had wireless communication, it was a natural progression to merge them. It was a GIVEN that this would happen. That's not innovation.

How is the internet an innovation then? We had computers, we had wired computer communication, it was a natural progression to merge them and expand on them. That's not innovation.

The existing technology came together and evolved into something greater than the previous sum of its parts. It became so much more than it what it was intended to become. Cell phones are exactly what they were intended to become. That's the difference between natural pogress and innovation. Using radio waves for communication is natural progression no matter how advanced it becomes. Using radio waves to cook food is innovative.

 

[CycloWizard]

What the OP doesn't seem to realize is that ALL technology is simply the "convergence and refinement" of previous technologies in innovative ways. Landing on the moon is absolutely no different in that regard - it just took a ton of grunt work to make it happen.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The only edit to my OP was a spelling correction to the title. The body is exactly as initially posted, so yes, internet/PC's were listed. And I certainly agree on that point. But cell phones are hardly innovative, radio communications were around and used well before the 1960's. If you NEEDED wireless communication in the 1960's it was cetainly available, cell phones have just brought it to people who WANT it, i.e. convenience.

You are clueless. Or 10 years old. It was a long ways from Arpanet to the commercial internet. From building-sized mainframes to the PC. From ham and CB radios to cell phones. Those were genuine innovations, not just "convenience."

HAM radios were able to "call" telephones decades ago. Before cell phones were even licensed by the FCC my dad was "calling" people from his hand held. Cell phones are not an innovation, they are a refinement.

Oh FFS, "refinement?" Did your dad forget to tell you about how much of a bitch that was? There's a reason why people weren't doing it. Provided you could even get a signal with a handheld (unlikely), you could probably drive home and call from there faster than it would take to get connected.
Under your definition of technological "refinement," the moon rocket was no innovation over the discovery of fire.

The reason people weren't doing it was because it required a HAM license. The only connection problem he would have was being within range of a tower. Guess what, we still have that problem today with cell phones. Removing a government regulation and adding more towers is hardly technical innovation.

You realize they didn't have many (if any) automated ham radio towers in 1969, right? It's not like you could just dial some landline number just by having a ham license, radio, and being in connection with a "tower." The "tower" was probably some (h)am-ateur's private antenna, for starters.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I agree that cell phones are a vast improvement over what we had, but the bottom line is they are just a convergence and refinement of technology that's nearly half a centruy old. We had phones, we had wireless communication, it was a natural progression to merge them. It was a GIVEN that this would happen. That's not innovation.

How is the internet an innovation then? We had computers, we had wired computer communication, it was a natural progression to merge them and expand on them. That's not innovation.

The existing technology came together and evolved into something greater than the previous sum of its parts. It became so much more than it what it was intended to become. Cell phones are exactly what they were intended to become. That's the difference between natural pogress and innovation. Using radio waves for communication is natural progression no matter how advanced it becomes. Using radio waves to cook food is innovative.

So poor prediction of the implications of technology somehow qualifies something as innovation? You asked for game changers. I gave you one. It's way more of one than the microwave oven.

That's the root of the problem though to be sure, your definition of innovation is arbitrary. You say that radio communication with cell phones isn't innovative, but you ignore the fact that it requires massive...massive innovation in order to make communicating on these scales possible. It's not just about refining a transceiver, it's about building hardware and software from the ground up that can allow these networks to function. Do you know what sort of signal distribution, calculation, and multiplexing is required in order to get dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people using the same towers at the same time, then switching them from tower to tower as they move? The existing technology we had came together and evolved into something much greater then the sum of RF communication and a computer.

Anyways though, this argument is pointless. You don't think there's been innovation, fine. I think you don't understand the technology.

EDIT: Turned "then" into "than". Zert.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
What the OP doesn't seem to realize is that ALL technology is simply the "convergence and refinement" of previous technologies in innovative ways. Landing on the moon is absolutely no different in that regard - it just took a ton of grunt work to make it happen.

I do realize that, and I guess I'm just not doing a good job of making my point. Technological advancement is convergence and refinement of existing technology. But this can happen without any innovation. It happens naturally. It happens anyway. It's just a result of the process. It takes some x-factor, some application, some effect, some distinction from this otherwise natural progession to make it truely innovative. And that's what I feell has been lacking over the past 40 years or so.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

You realize they didn't have many (if any) automated ham radio towers in 1969, right? It's not like you could just dial some landline number just by having a ham license, radio, and being in connection with a "tower." The "tower" was probably some (h)am-ateur's private antenna, for starters.

Not to mention that even if they did add all these towers, interference and about a dozen other practical issues would have prevented the usage of HAM radios for large scale phone communication. The HAM radio has about as much in common with the cell phone as a pocket calculator does with a modern computer. Sure they both crunch numbers, but the modern PC is so much more capable and complicated that the two are unrecognizable.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


That's the root of the problem though to be sure, your definition of innovation is arbitrary.

Yep.

Innovate- 1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. That was the first entry@dictionary.com. His criteria for what qualifies, is just that, his criteria. And how the hell the iphone for example, is exactly what cell phones were intended to become

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Maybe I am being strict with my definition of "innovation" but I can't believe so many people can look back on our technical progression since landing on the moon (the freaking moon!) and not feel it is somewhat stunted. And would anyone really point to an i-anything as a counterexample of that? That's like pointing to Bose as innovative audio tech.

 

[randalee]

Prime example -- F117 fighter being retired. Why so? It relied on computer tech from 1979 (when fighter was first built) to run it! Sure, perhaps there was an upgrade or two along the way. But can an F117, (or ANY plane for that matter) do THIS?