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

I have seen the future and I am opposed

core77.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#61

Post by nick_urban »

swombat wrote: post #29
nick_urban wrote: post #3

Does it strike any one else as at least a _bit_ disturbing that he thinks his "mind" is in his smart phone, and finds no problem with this other than that service providers are greedy? An obvious way to avoid becoming beholden to service providers is to retain some independence from our devices. It's not like people didn't travel before the invention of the iPhone.

Does it strike any one else as at least a _bit_ disturbing that he thinks his "mind" is in his smart phone, and finds no problem with this other than that service providers are greedy? No. It is natural and true. Intelligence Augmentation is already there, in the form of the internet and our array of portable computers, which give us access to any information or computation we know how to find or express. We are alre…

I don't particularly object to the idea that we hold some of our intelligence in our environment. I think it's true, and actually forms the basis for my objection. What I object to is that we should naively allow that environment to be changed from one which offers manifold possibilities for a full range of embodied engagement (the natural world and man-made things which relate to our bodies in a way which does not significantly restrict our possibilities, e.g. clothes or hand tools) into one which encourages superficial stimulus-response behavior and instant gratification according to pre-fabricated programs.

It sounded to me like Don Norman had already accepted that idea to the point that he didn't even realize it was a choice. He worries about a future of greedy carriers controlling our phone-brains. I worry about the fact that our minds could become so beholden to devices that, regardless of whether those devices are open or privately controlled, we diminish the depth of our experience and our tendencies towards reflective thought.

If drugs were available that increased our abilities but made us less thoughtful, would you accept that without deliberation? Would it really be better if those drugs were easy to make at home or handed out for free rather than sold in stores? This is already happening with Ritalin and "smart drugs". They improve our ability to carry out mental work but diminish our ability to reflect on what we are doing.

"Smart" drugs and phones are only so in terms of instrumental reason, not in terms of creativity or contemplation of ends.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#62

Post by nika »

rfrey wrote: post #25
nika wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows you to run any software you want on your device. If you want something that isn't in the appstore, then you can have a webapp that works as a native app, that can be downloaded from the web, appear as an app on a page of apps like all the other apps, and operate like an app with access to the sensors of the device. Apple provides a complete platform for development of these apps, completely out of apple'…

It's like the parent said "blah, blah blah, blah, I may (blah) not like Apple blah, blah, blah".

No, the parent propagated the dishonest claims about Apple that android fans like to spread, and for pointing out the truth I am downvoted and for attacking me personally, you are upvoted.

Frankly, if your ideas were superior, you wouldn't need to rely on lies and censorship to propagate them.

This tells us everything we need to know about the lack of integrity of the average HN poster.

I find the level of dishonesty quite disgusting.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#63

Post by nika »

sid0 wrote: post #58
nika wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows you to run any software you want on your device. If you want something that isn't in the appstore, then you can have a webapp that works as a native app, that can be downloaded from the web, appear as an app on a page of apps like all the other apps, and operate like an app with access to the sensors of the device. Apple provides a complete platform for development of these apps, completely out of apple'…

> The app store doesn't let you make malicious or pornographic apps How could Apple possibly prevent a sufficiently covertly malicious application from entering the app store?

They can't. And they really are quite liberal in their screening for the most part. But they are trying to provide a good experience for their customers.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#64

Post by pyre »

grellas wrote: post #57
ajscherer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. "The long term" may or may not allow for that. Your argument seems to be akin to "History shows that every tyrant who ever existed has died." Yes but if one or more new tyrants has been born for every one that died, what consolation is it? Different corporate overlords isn't the same as no corporate overlords.

I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. Well, a free enterprise system is just that: one in which consumers have choices. The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my "freedom" in any real sense of that word and, in the meantime, I will gladly use Google over AltaVista, Apple over a Brand X music p…

  > The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile
  > devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my
  > "freedom" in any real sense of that word
Is that really the case? If Microsoft specifically tries to prevent competitors from coming to market through anti-competitive actions, then they are limiting my 'freedom' in that they are trying to limit the options that I have when I have a choice to make on which operating system to use, no?

Limiting freedom doesn't apply solely to the freedom to make a choice, it also applies to limiting the options one has to choose between. When AT&T lobbies the government to allow them to refuse access to their last-mile lines to 3rd-party ISPs, then AT&T is limiting my freedom b/c now I have fewer choices in ISPs in my area.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#65

Post by pyre »

gukjoon wrote: post #49
ippisl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From looking at your examples for disrupted companies, they are mostly disruped by the internet, which was a huge technological change. Yes , we live in time of rapid technological change , but how soon do you see an internet level change affecting the industry ? and aren't today's companies more aware of the innovator's dillema and can handle disruptive change somewhat better(microsoft has done quite a good job at t…

I disagree. We're just so jaded by the speed of change that we don't ascribe much significance to changes that have completely changed how human beings interact. While many of these technologies are built on the internet, saying that they're insignificant because of this is kind of like saying the internet is insignificant since it's built on telephony. Furthermore, it's almost without exception that these technologi…

But all of the infrastructure that those things run on cost money too. The 'cloud' isn't going to eliminate the cost of running fiber. The ISPs/network operators are increasingly going to become the gatekeepers, hell they already are.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#66

Post by pyre »

rtperson wrote: post #53
cletus wrote: post #34

It's an interesting post. A few points: > But what I see developing seems driven by greed and profit... Yes, it's called "capitalism". > For me, the future would bring forth solutions to our needs and wants... Check. > design that provides value in a sustainable and responsible manner... "Sustainable" is an extremely loaded term. Basically, you get it when the market demands it. If you see it as important, it's not a…

> In the UK's example, nationalization fostered trade (the roads were all toll roads previously). In the case of the US railroads, nationalization can arguably be seen as a disaster so there are mixed results of this. It's a mixed bag all around, this one. The railroads in the US were killed, for the most part, by the Interstate Highway system, an equally nationalized endeavor. But really, they were doomed by geograp…

Part of the issue with rail is that it takes to long compared to the alternatives. This is not really a failing of rail as a technology, but a failure of investment in infrastructure. Outside of the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, the trains can't go as fast due to the rails (IIRC they have to slow down to 35mph). If the infrastructure investment had been there, train travel could be a viable alternative to air travel.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#67

Post by loewenskind »

grellas wrote: post #8

This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. The unstated premise of the piece seems to be that, as technology matures, control over it becomes consolidated in fewer hands, each of whom has a proprietary interest to limit its ul…

You make some good points but I think you're underestimating the power a monopoly can have. It's true that IBM wasn't able to keep their strangle hold on technology, but Microsoft did for a long time. Walmart still stands largely unopposed.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#68

Post by ippisl »

gukjoon wrote: post #49
ippisl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From looking at your examples for disrupted companies, they are mostly disruped by the internet, which was a huge technological change. Yes , we live in time of rapid technological change , but how soon do you see an internet level change affecting the industry ? and aren't today's companies more aware of the innovator's dillema and can handle disruptive change somewhat better(microsoft has done quite a good job at t…

I disagree. We're just so jaded by the speed of change that we don't ascribe much significance to changes that have completely changed how human beings interact. While many of these technologies are built on the internet, saying that they're insignificant because of this is kind of like saying the internet is insignificant since it's built on telephony. Furthermore, it's almost without exception that these technologi…

I'm not so sure all of the barriers to entry have evaporated. they have just changed.

You can look at netflix , amazon , google and apple and the ISP's. each have a huge competitive barrier : wheter it's huge customer base , big data , big "relationships" , huge brand , huge brain trusts, large manufacturing volume, network effects, large costly infrasturtuce or a very very efficent logistical system. those are things that costs alot of money and are not easy to scale.

And if all that doesn't work , in many cases you can just buy your future disruptor.

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#69

Post by coderdude »

rfrey wrote: post #25
nika wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows you to run any software you want on your device. If you want something that isn't in the appstore, then you can have a webapp that works as a native app, that can be downloaded from the web, appear as an app on a page of apps like all the other apps, and operate like an app with access to the sensors of the device. Apple provides a complete platform for development of these apps, completely out of apple'…

It's like the parent said "blah, blah blah, blah, I may (blah) not like Apple blah, blah, blah".

You'll notice he's updated his about: "Don't participate anymore due to the hive mind, intolerance and lack of quality discussions here."

Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed

#70

Post by zecg »

To quote: "My intelligence is in the cloud. My life is in the cloud. My friends, photographs, ideas and mail. My life. My mind. Take away my cloud and I am left mindless.

Mindless, unattached, not clinging... a proper Nirvana.

Post reply on HN