Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#871

Post by sah2ed »

VLM wrote: post #554

Token Ring Networking as a protocol/concept (not so much physical IBM hardware, of course) rather than CSMA/CD. It naturally makes sense that allocating BW via a token would be much more power efficient and faster than transmitting into the void and hoping for no collision. Its hard to get line rate traffic with CSMA/CD but the financial services co I was working at back then had very high util in the upper 90%s for…

I did a cursory search [0] on Token Ring vs CSMA/CD and it appears that "worse is better" is why CSMA/CD won out.

CSMA/CD was much cheaper to deploy than Token Ring.

"Token-Ring has been a bit of a mystery for many people. This is due to the fact that Ethernet, and other Carrier Sense Multi Access - Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) networks, are the most widely installed network topology. This is because most network designers cannot look past the initial cost of Token-Ring. While Token-Ring does cost more per port to install, it offers vast benefits over Ethernet and other CSMA/CD topologies."

[0] http://www.let.rug.nl/bosveld/algoritmiek/aptokenhc7.htm

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#872

Post by Viper007Bond »

ilkan wrote: post #852

I expected Remote Desktop to be on every system... it's really frustrating that I can't remotely see and configure my elderly mom's iPhone screen when she needs tech support. "Do you see an x? Or is there something that looks like a backwards arrow? No? A less-than symbol? Or the word Back? No? Cancel? Maybe at the bottom?"

https://www.teamviewer.us/features/ios-screen-sharing/

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#873

Post by lookACamel »

zimpenfish wrote: post #562
therealmarv wrote: post #561

VR (yes the standalone/PC systems or the one which you can have with your phone). I have the feeling it's dying already because most non geeks are not really interested into it. It's like 3D TV of 2017.

It's not just that non-geeks aren't really interested; it's that it has a whole bunch of barriers as well for those that are interested. 1. You need a reasonably powerful PC or PS4 ($$$) 2. You need the VR kit itself ($$) 3. You need space to use it 4. You need to be physically able to use it 5. You need a lack of motion sickness, etc. 6. There's bugger all games at the moment 7. Probably something else I've not thou…

7. You need to find time to use it. (Pairs nicely with reason 3.) Currently, VR is a separate activity which doesn't fit into one's existing activities. It's a nice experience the first time, but what's the compelling reason to turn it into a habit?

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#874

Post by artimaeis »

turc1656 wrote: post #694

Paypal used to have this feature that allowed you to install a browser add-on and you could generate a CC number on the fly that was good for either one time use or recurring use (for subscription services). This feature served two primary purposes: 1) to be able to pay using PayPal on sites that didn't support it 2) to help prevent against fraud which was becoming a massive problem at the time. If the number was sto…

Another service that offers this: https://privacy.com/.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#875

Post by dhimes »

baldfat wrote: post #869
abainbridge wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well I blame the system. You needed upgraded headphones or speakers. I have $2000 studio monitors when I was an audio engineer and well I can 100% tell you in a blind test I can tell the difference. Do you have an explanation of how that is possible? On the face of it, CD seems to have more SNR and frequency response than necessary. I've got intelligent friends on both sides of the debate, but I've never heard a pl…

I can explain. On stereo you will be hard pressed by most people. The issue is where and how is everything done from recording all the way to mastering. Technically here is how it works. CDs are at 44.1khz sample rate and you record at 96khz back in 2000s, similar how video recordings are 8k for 4k or 1080p. Then when you exported your mix to be mastered it would get knocked down to 44.1khz not very noticeable in the…

But the question remains. Given Nyquist theorem and an upper limit to human ear response, what is the advantage of going over ~40kHZ? I understand you can encode more information, but decoding to higher frequencies than we can hear doesn't seem (to the novice) to be beneficial. Do we somehow 'detect' harmonics above what we can hear? Or is the extra information used to process something else differently, like the relative volumes of two slightly different instruments making a note at the same pitch? It's an interesting question IMO.

EDIT: upper ear response is presumably limited to ~20 kHz

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#876

Post by emodendroket »

turc1656 wrote: post #694

Paypal used to have this feature that allowed you to install a browser add-on and you could generate a CC number on the fly that was good for either one time use or recurring use (for subscription services). This feature served two primary purposes: 1) to be able to pay using PayPal on sites that didn't support it 2) to help prevent against fraud which was becoming a massive problem at the time. If the number was sto…

One of my credit cards offers this.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#877

Post by fsloth »

baldfat wrote: post #792
fsloth wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant the Macintosh Plus, not the Macintosh 128k. I was off by a few years, the Mac Plus came in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Plus I think the example is a bit too sluggish but is probably a more correct presentation of the actual facts than my nostalgic outburst.

The delays of just writing a widow is so slow. Macintosh Plus Review https://youtu.be/_bI0moHdjPQ?t=22m29s I was an Amiga kid. I had friends and co-workers who had Macintosh Plus and they always seemed to be so S-L-O-W to an Amiga. Amiga 1000 from 1986 https://youtu.be/CDWdVk-hmgA?t=51s The window draws were also slow BUT Ray Tracing and full animation compared to that lame Macintosh is just a whole different generat…

Oh gods, I was a kid in the 80:s and I was so envious of all my friends who had Amigas.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#878

Post by mcphage »

marcosdumay wrote: post #571
r3bl wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a table with an e-ink display that can show you whatever you want them to show you. Imagine reading news above your sink while doing the dishes. Imagine the entire walls constructed with e-ink displays in your home and being able to change the wallpapers in your living room depending on what's currently in your mind. All of those could have a "read-only" mode until you push a button, they would use pretty muc…

E-ink isn't good enough for any of those yet. I don't know how much research is ongoing into it, and I do think it's underutilized (I can't understand why smart watches use LCDs), but there are many breakthroughs before we can get those things you mention. I still expect it to get all over the world, eventually.

> I can't understand why smart watches use LCDs

Refresh rate. If all a smart watch did was be a watch, it would be sufficient, but there would be no reason for it to exist. Once you want it to do non-watch things, you need a better refresh rate.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#879

Post by billconan »

shove wrote: post #606

WebGL. I spent ~10 years doing Flash / ActionScript and when Jobs nixed the mobile Flash plugin, I figured everything would shift to HTML5 / WebGL. Nope. The era of fancy, interactive websites faded into the rearview mirror. I'm sure most of you don't miss it, but there was so much amazing work. Rather than the budgets shifting to Three.js etc, it went to apps or dried up completely.

I thought about the this.

The reason that 3D web hasn't been big is because, the most effective way of making and consuming content is via natural language, or text.

text, by its nature, is 2D. 3D won't be mainstream, because it's too demanding to make.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#880

Post by Veedrac »

baldfat wrote: post #792
fsloth wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant the Macintosh Plus, not the Macintosh 128k. I was off by a few years, the Mac Plus came in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Plus I think the example is a bit too sluggish but is probably a more correct presentation of the actual facts than my nostalgic outburst.

The delays of just writing a widow is so slow. Macintosh Plus Review https://youtu.be/_bI0moHdjPQ?t=22m29s I was an Amiga kid. I had friends and co-workers who had Macintosh Plus and they always seemed to be so S-L-O-W to an Amiga. Amiga 1000 from 1986 https://youtu.be/CDWdVk-hmgA?t=51s The window draws were also slow BUT Ray Tracing and full animation compared to that lame Macintosh is just a whole different generat…

That did not look any less responsive than doing the same on LibreOffice on my high-end gaming laptop, with an SSD, and in many cases it looked more so.

Of course, the newer one has newer graphics, but it also has enough transistors to replace each one in the 68k with a whole new 68k.

Post reply on HN