Renzatic on 3/10/2010 at 09:57
Sub, I can see where ZB is coming from on this. The smartphones we have now are a natural progression of the old Newtons and Palm Pilots. To use your airplane analogy, a jet powered stealth bomber isn't an entirely new invention simply because it's an improvement of the biplane from the bottom up. It's simply a more evolved design upon the basic idea of the plane. Similarly, a smartphone that lets you take pictures, play music, and check your email, isn't an entirely different beast from those old PDAs or whatever the hell you want to call them. They're, once again, simply a more evolved design.
SubJeff on 3/10/2010 at 15:39
Yeah, Renz, I agree. I'm not saying handheld devices or planes are totally different. Of course they are evolutions, it's just that when having an earlier version of something you may not envisage how it's going to evolve.
Nice comic ZB. Can we get off this now and talk futurology now?
daniel on 3/10/2010 at 15:40
All of you are pretty optimistic. Looking back at human history, hasn't a long period of nothing or even a degradation of society happened after a long period of success?
I'm not saying it will happen the same way as in the past, but people need time to adjust and that slows down progress. HD is just getting popular and now there's 3D next year? I also read an article recently that less than 20% of Americans use smartphones. And I haven't seen a hybrid or electric minivan in use by a family.
Those who are slow to adopt won't hold back new development, but until an idea or invention is embraced by a majority it won't see its fully developed potential.
Brian The Dog on 3/10/2010 at 17:00
If you go back a long way in history (e.g. Roman empire, Medieval Europe, etc) those periods of degradation are usually due to political instability or wars. The reason why nations agreed to join bodies such as the UN or EU is to reduce the possibility of these wars, which makes countries plan for the long-term (e.g. 50 years). Examples where regression has occurred recently (Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan) are due to local instability. To cause regression for the whole of humanity, you'd have to have a really major war or international incident.
Of course, you may be meaning that the societies regress in culture or morals, but this is highly arguable. Better to say that technology causes cultural shifts, some of which are good and some of which are bad.
ZylonBane on 3/10/2010 at 18:16
Quote Posted by daniel
I also read an article recently that less than 20% of Americans use smartphones.
For all their technological awesomeness, there's an undeniable usability degradation when switching from a traditional cell phone to an iPhone-style smartphone. They're larger, heavier, have shorter battery life, and (
http://conversations.nokia.com/2010/07/23/the-interface-debate-part-one-buttonholics-anonymous/) lack a physical keypad. The increasingly common mandatory data plans are just the cherry on top of the disincentive cake.
The big technological breakthrough I'm hoping for with smartphone screens is the ability to actually feel the virtual buttons. The vibration haptics currently in use are just a clumsy hack.
Bluegrime on 3/10/2010 at 21:06
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
The reason why nations agreed to join bodies such as the UN or EU is to reduce the possibility of these wars, which makes countries plan for the long-term (e.g. 50 years).
Large, interconnecting alliances are a surefire way to prevent a world war. Not knocking you for saying something that's incorrect so much as the belief that world wars can be prevented with bigger alliances.
SubJeff on 3/10/2010 at 21:12
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
For all their technological awesomeness, there's an undeniable usability degradation when switching from a traditional cell phone to an iPhone-style smartphone.
It's a disadvantage with the iPhone because people perceive the lack of keyboard to be an issue, especially those that are used to fast texting with a physical keyboard. I know a couple of people who have resisted the move to smartphones because they do a lot of texting and don't like the touch screen. There are physical keyboard options with all the other smartphone OSs though so it shouldn't really be an issue.
I wonder where they're going to take the physical interface though. Voice activated texting is okay but it's not accurate enough yet, requires you to have a data connection (on Android anyway, don't know about other OSs) and you often don't want other people hearing what you're sending. Unless we get a new touch system like (
http://www.thumbscript.com/) Thumbscript or that one handed thing with 5 buttons (the combination of buttons you press at once determines what you input, I forget the name of it and can't find it on google) that is widely taken up I don't see things changing for a long time.
But then this is just it; I can't see an easy way past the current methods. In 50 years there is bound to be something that supercedes it.
Assidragon on 3/10/2010 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
Large, interconnecting alliances are a surefire way to prevent a world war. Not knocking you for saying something that's incorrect so much as the belief that world wars can be prevented with bigger alliances.
Sure enough, big alliances worked in favour of making wars larger a while ago. Like, until MAD kicked in. Now, with everyone and their pet dogs having nukes, they seem to make the world a bit safer, as noone wants to die a fiery/radioactive death afterall. Well, not until some lunatic presses the red button and we all die anyway.
Me, I personally wish I could have seen the time when humanity "merges" with machines. I would love being able to plug an disk into my head and skip having to learn for fourteen years.
Brian The Dog on 3/10/2010 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
Large, interconnecting alliances are a surefire way to prevent a world war. Not knocking you for saying something that's incorrect so much as the belief that world wars can be prevented with bigger alliances.
Sure, I agree, because then you get a situation like World War I. I was more thinking when pretty much all the countries in the world are in an organisation.
