Space will always be filled
-
Space will always be filled You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage. Back then, you were forced to write some clever code, because memory was limited. Today, my computer is a 1000 times faster, has a 1000 times more memory and of all the true useful things, it does just as well. The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) was just as exiting as DOOM is today, despite the fact that a modern video game is vastly more complex and does NOT run on my old computer, it does just the same.... it makes me happy when I play it. Faster CPUs and larger memory chips were not developed because of necessity, rather because it was possible. Then the SW developers "filled the space" with something, which does essentially the same thing as a previous product, except it needs more space. This theory is applicable to virtually anything in our lives. A city decides to do something about the traffic jams and add some lanes to the main highway. I argue, that it does nothing to improve the traffic, because people will drive more, move further away from their work and drive bigger cars. Building more fuel efficient cars does not do anything for the world as a whole either. Because of the "flood" of unsold gasoline, it only will encourage people in the rest of the world to waste the resources just the same as the US does. I can go on with other examples almost forever. My point is: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. We have to restrict ourselves voluntary about everything we do. If we keep on doing things for no other reason but: "because we can", the next generation of GMC Suburbans will be twice as big and use a gallon a mile. The next generation of hard-drives will have 1TB of space, and it will be filled just as fast as the 5.25 floppy on my CP/M computer. Fortunately for us geeks, the environmental impact of playing DOOM is rather minor. But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. Still, if nothing else, computer programming is great fun. Daniela
-
Space will always be filled You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage. Back then, you were forced to write some clever code, because memory was limited. Today, my computer is a 1000 times faster, has a 1000 times more memory and of all the true useful things, it does just as well. The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) was just as exiting as DOOM is today, despite the fact that a modern video game is vastly more complex and does NOT run on my old computer, it does just the same.... it makes me happy when I play it. Faster CPUs and larger memory chips were not developed because of necessity, rather because it was possible. Then the SW developers "filled the space" with something, which does essentially the same thing as a previous product, except it needs more space. This theory is applicable to virtually anything in our lives. A city decides to do something about the traffic jams and add some lanes to the main highway. I argue, that it does nothing to improve the traffic, because people will drive more, move further away from their work and drive bigger cars. Building more fuel efficient cars does not do anything for the world as a whole either. Because of the "flood" of unsold gasoline, it only will encourage people in the rest of the world to waste the resources just the same as the US does. I can go on with other examples almost forever. My point is: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. We have to restrict ourselves voluntary about everything we do. If we keep on doing things for no other reason but: "because we can", the next generation of GMC Suburbans will be twice as big and use a gallon a mile. The next generation of hard-drives will have 1TB of space, and it will be filled just as fast as the 5.25 floppy on my CP/M computer. Fortunately for us geeks, the environmental impact of playing DOOM is rather minor. But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. Still, if nothing else, computer programming is great fun. Daniela
Daniela123 wrote: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. This is not entirely true.. We have to learn to be happy with what we have and to only innovate when and where innovation is needed. Useless technology is not advancement, it is bloat. I have seen this for years. My example has always been the disposable razor. WHY do we really need it? There are so many better (and in the long run cheaper) alternatives out there.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
-
Space will always be filled You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage. Back then, you were forced to write some clever code, because memory was limited. Today, my computer is a 1000 times faster, has a 1000 times more memory and of all the true useful things, it does just as well. The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) was just as exiting as DOOM is today, despite the fact that a modern video game is vastly more complex and does NOT run on my old computer, it does just the same.... it makes me happy when I play it. Faster CPUs and larger memory chips were not developed because of necessity, rather because it was possible. Then the SW developers "filled the space" with something, which does essentially the same thing as a previous product, except it needs more space. This theory is applicable to virtually anything in our lives. A city decides to do something about the traffic jams and add some lanes to the main highway. I argue, that it does nothing to improve the traffic, because people will drive more, move further away from their work and drive bigger cars. Building more fuel efficient cars does not do anything for the world as a whole either. Because of the "flood" of unsold gasoline, it only will encourage people in the rest of the world to waste the resources just the same as the US does. I can go on with other examples almost forever. My point is: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. We have to restrict ourselves voluntary about everything we do. If we keep on doing things for no other reason but: "because we can", the next generation of GMC Suburbans will be twice as big and use a gallon a mile. The next generation of hard-drives will have 1TB of space, and it will be filled just as fast as the 5.25 floppy on my CP/M computer. Fortunately for us geeks, the environmental impact of playing DOOM is rather minor. But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. Still, if nothing else, computer programming is great fun. Daniela
Daniela123 wrote: The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) No. It was my dad's CP/M machine. It is in a box in his garage. :-D Daniela123 wrote: You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage That game was awesome. I made a map and everything. The other classic game was from my TI 99-4A. All I need to say is... I smell a wumpus. :suss:
-
Space will always be filled You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage. Back then, you were forced to write some clever code, because memory was limited. Today, my computer is a 1000 times faster, has a 1000 times more memory and of all the true useful things, it does just as well. The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) was just as exiting as DOOM is today, despite the fact that a modern video game is vastly more complex and does NOT run on my old computer, it does just the same.... it makes me happy when I play it. Faster CPUs and larger memory chips were not developed because of necessity, rather because it was possible. Then the SW developers "filled the space" with something, which does essentially the same thing as a previous product, except it needs more space. This theory is applicable to virtually anything in our lives. A city decides to do something about the traffic jams and add some lanes to the main highway. I argue, that it does nothing to improve the traffic, because people will drive more, move further away from their work and drive bigger cars. Building more fuel efficient cars does not do anything for the world as a whole either. Because of the "flood" of unsold gasoline, it only will encourage people in the rest of the world to waste the resources just the same as the US does. I can go on with other examples almost forever. My point is: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. We have to restrict ourselves voluntary about everything we do. If we keep on doing things for no other reason but: "because we can", the next generation of GMC Suburbans will be twice as big and use a gallon a mile. The next generation of hard-drives will have 1TB of space, and it will be filled just as fast as the 5.25 floppy on my CP/M computer. Fortunately for us geeks, the environmental impact of playing DOOM is rather minor. But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. Still, if nothing else, computer programming is great fun. Daniela
Daniela123 wrote: But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. I would argue that discoveries made "for the heck of it" often times help to provide information or technologies to help solve "real" problems later. BUt more fundamentally, what is considered useful for mankind? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Daniela123 wrote: But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. I would argue that discoveries made "for the heck of it" often times help to provide information or technologies to help solve "real" problems later. BUt more fundamentally, what is considered useful for mankind? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
brianwelsch wrote: I would argue that discoveries made "for the heck of it" often times help to provide information or technologies to help solve "real" problems later. BUt more fundamentally, what is considered useful for mankind? I guess that I agree with this statement... but I think that just because we innovate and discover doe snot mean that we have to implement just because we can. Unfortunately the people responsible for innovation and discovery also have budgets to meet and bills to pay sop they are always looking to get a ROI on their innovations. Whay is wrong with 'innovation for reference'? Discover how to do something, document how it was done, then keep that info in the back of your head to help out on other things latter. Again, it goes back to my old example… just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to?
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
-
brianwelsch wrote: I would argue that discoveries made "for the heck of it" often times help to provide information or technologies to help solve "real" problems later. BUt more fundamentally, what is considered useful for mankind? I guess that I agree with this statement... but I think that just because we innovate and discover doe snot mean that we have to implement just because we can. Unfortunately the people responsible for innovation and discovery also have budgets to meet and bills to pay sop they are always looking to get a ROI on their innovations. Whay is wrong with 'innovation for reference'? Discover how to do something, document how it was done, then keep that info in the back of your head to help out on other things latter. Again, it goes back to my old example… just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to?
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
Ray Cassick wrote: just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to? What's the point behind shaving at all? My problem in dealing with this issue is the line of where and when it is OK to implement solutions is very, very fuzzy. At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Space will always be filled You probably still have your old CP/M or DOS computer in a box in the garage. Back then, you were forced to write some clever code, because memory was limited. Today, my computer is a 1000 times faster, has a 1000 times more memory and of all the true useful things, it does just as well. The "original adventure game" (you are standing at the end of a long road...) was just as exiting as DOOM is today, despite the fact that a modern video game is vastly more complex and does NOT run on my old computer, it does just the same.... it makes me happy when I play it. Faster CPUs and larger memory chips were not developed because of necessity, rather because it was possible. Then the SW developers "filled the space" with something, which does essentially the same thing as a previous product, except it needs more space. This theory is applicable to virtually anything in our lives. A city decides to do something about the traffic jams and add some lanes to the main highway. I argue, that it does nothing to improve the traffic, because people will drive more, move further away from their work and drive bigger cars. Building more fuel efficient cars does not do anything for the world as a whole either. Because of the "flood" of unsold gasoline, it only will encourage people in the rest of the world to waste the resources just the same as the US does. I can go on with other examples almost forever. My point is: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. We have to restrict ourselves voluntary about everything we do. If we keep on doing things for no other reason but: "because we can", the next generation of GMC Suburbans will be twice as big and use a gallon a mile. The next generation of hard-drives will have 1TB of space, and it will be filled just as fast as the 5.25 floppy on my CP/M computer. Fortunately for us geeks, the environmental impact of playing DOOM is rather minor. But we should not pretend, that technical innovation "for the heck of it" does anything useful for mankind. Still, if nothing else, computer programming is great fun. Daniela
Unfortunately, growth is the name of the corporate game. If you are a company, either you grow or you die, because if there is no scope for growth, no one wants to own the stock. So, the coproprates always have to create new markets, new opportunities. It has never been about what people want and their happiness. As Ray says below, why do we need a dispoziable razor or a disposible camera? It helps the bottomline of Gillete, Kodak and other corporates. We would all still look as cleanly shaven/unshaven whether the disposible razor existed or not. But, people buy it because it is convenient, and it increases sales. Ofcourse, if one can live within one's resources and be contented with it, there is nothing more rewarding. But, without the strive towards growth, the economies get stagnant, and genuine growth also will not take place. There are so many things that we do not need, that gets produced; but it is the nature of the system. It is also not about how efficiently something can be done, as Ray points out below in the razor example. Society works better, if more people need to be involved in getting things done, because it generates more employment and an equitable distribution of wealth. A very efficient system requires few people to run, and how does the less brilliant people make a living - what would they do? We see this happening over and over. We don't need bank tellers any more, because of ATMs. We reduce checkout staff at supermarkets - because self-service helps reduce costs. The cyclic nature of the economy, IMO, is because of businesses getting very efficient, and requiring very few people, and this causes a recession until the next big thing comes along. From my perspective, happiness is being with the people you love, and being able to do what you love, and make a decent living doing both. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Ray Cassick wrote: just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to? What's the point behind shaving at all? My problem in dealing with this issue is the line of where and when it is OK to implement solutions is very, very fuzzy. At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
brianwelsch wrote: What's the point behind shaving at all? Take a look at my pic you you will see that I don't much care for it either :) brianwelsch wrote: At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? I think this is the key point in making the determination. Is the 'problem' you are solving a real 'problem' or just a need for ROI keenly disguised as a problem? This is what companies that are going through ZBB exercises on their development budgets are calling 'nice to have vs. need to have' analysis.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
-
brianwelsch wrote: What's the point behind shaving at all? Take a look at my pic you you will see that I don't much care for it either :) brianwelsch wrote: At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? I think this is the key point in making the determination. Is the 'problem' you are solving a real 'problem' or just a need for ROI keenly disguised as a problem? This is what companies that are going through ZBB exercises on their development budgets are calling 'nice to have vs. need to have' analysis.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
The psychology of more, though, goes well beyond corporate board rooms. People in their daily lives go through the nice to have v. need to have analysis as well, but we're at a point (especially in the west) where need to have is becoming less of an issue at all, and most of our decision end out being what would I rather have. A 22' boat and trailer, and truck to pull it all, or a new addition to the house and a nice weeks vacation at the beach? Hmm? A computer or a guitar? save for a rainy day or Quake 8? The mass consumption that is a result of our continuously misplaced search for fulfillment is not easily slowed nor is it particularly desirable to do so at this point. BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Ray Cassick wrote: just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to? What's the point behind shaving at all? My problem in dealing with this issue is the line of where and when it is OK to implement solutions is very, very fuzzy. At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
very fuzzy, is that a joke about the razor? Josef Wainz Software Developer
-
very fuzzy, is that a joke about the razor? Josef Wainz Software Developer
well, maybe subconsciously. :-O BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Ray Cassick wrote: just because we CAN build disposable razors, does that mean that we HAVE to? What's the point behind shaving at all? My problem in dealing with this issue is the line of where and when it is OK to implement solutions is very, very fuzzy. At what point does a problem warrant application of a technology? BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
brianwelsch wrote: What's the point behind shaving at all? So that your skin is as smooth as an androids butt, of course! Duuuh! :cool: :-D -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
-
brianwelsch wrote: What's the point behind shaving at all? So that your skin is as smooth as an androids butt, of course! Duuuh! :cool: :-D -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
Another of life's great mysteries has been illuminated for me. Thank You.;) BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Another of life's great mysteries has been illuminated for me. Thank You.;) BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
I'm happy to serve. :-D -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
-
Daniela123 wrote: We humans have to learn to be happy with less. This is not entirely true.. We have to learn to be happy with what we have and to only innovate when and where innovation is needed. Useless technology is not advancement, it is bloat. I have seen this for years. My example has always been the disposable razor. WHY do we really need it? There are so many better (and in the long run cheaper) alternatives out there.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
Ray Cassick wrote: My example has always been the disposable razor. WHY do we really need it? Convenience.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaChris Losinger wrote: i hate needles so much i can't even imagine allowing one near The Little Programmer