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

Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

worldpolicy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#81

Post by bdunbar »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #73
tsotha wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, no, we would not have considered it magical. Based on television shows like Space:1999 we fully expected to have a large moon base and ray guns by 1999. My 1985 self would have looked at the iPad and said "That's all? The battery only lasts for a few hours, it's only two-dimensional, and I can't roll it. What happened, was there a nuclear war initiated dark age?"

I doubt that. The iPad is an amazing technical leap over consumer electronics circa 1985 (Pong, Pacman, grainy color TV).

Pong was old school in 1985. Atari 5200 had been released a few years earlier.

It wasn't exactly caveman days, ya know.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#82

Post by OstiaAntica »

jeffdavis wrote: post #59

I am only about halfway through the article, but the "failure of society to get big things done" thesis is falling flat. What about cell phones, and the communication revolution in general? While I'm at the park in the US, I can call someone in Europe riding on a train. Or, I can take the same phone to Europe and call someone back home. That's pretty amazing, if you ask me. What about free/open source software? Someo…

You missed the point about cell phones. The technology is over 60 years old, but it took FOREVER to commercialize it. The reason: telecom was controlled by monopolies, and the government owns the spectrum. In fact, the government is still wasting massive amounts of wireless spectrum-- given away free by Congress to their broadcaster crony contributors.

A lot of the problem, across the board today, is the U.S. litigation and regulatory state. So, the reality is that the cell phone revolution happened in spite of our national political leadership.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#83

Post by mattront »

1092u34iojagj wrote: post #33
mattront wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can get the next Harry Potter (or whatever replaces it) without leaving your couch." "...without a human ever touching a carving tool." Brrr... I got a vision of pig-fat humanoids permanently embedded in their couches that can't even hold a spoon with their degenerated clumsy hands :-)

Dystopia is always a possibility... but in the near future I think we're reasonably safe. Try to think back to what passed as extreme sports in the 80s and compare it to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9RJSPnf8A I'm not sure we're headed into WALL-E chairs just yet.

That's really extreme! Most people are not doing that.

On the other hand, take a look at increasing obesity rates and lack of skilled handyman in developed countries.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#84

Post by jerf »

sgentle wrote: post #14

Grr! I like Stephenson a lot but I find this argument highly disingenuous. In fact, I find most of the reactions I've seen to "the end of US spaceflight capability" sickeningly short-sighted and hyperbolic. Read the goddamn budget announcement: "Orszag said that in addition to research and development, NASA’s proposal invests in 'advance robotics and other steps that will help to inspire Americans and not just return…

"What NASA should be doing is what no private enterprise can do: highly unprofitable risky space pioneering that inspires the human race."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112392431/spacex-sets-it...

I do not know if SpaceX will make it; I'd personally bet against that timeframe, though I wouldn't bet against the goal in general. But I will guarantee this: Barring a major political turnaround in the US, SpaceX will make a manned mission to Mars happen before NASA possibly could at this point. They don't have to make sure at least one part is sourced from each Congressional district, they aren't beholden to a Congress that on space exploration time scales blunders about like a drunken sailor, and they aren't a 53-year-old sclerotic bureaucracy.

Unprofitable they can do (and I mean that in both the good (research) and bad (blatant waste of funds) ways); they can not do risky. Unless you mean "risky because politics compromised the engineering process", which they can also still do. (Reading an honest history of the Space Shuttle is an eyeopener. Feynman and the glass of ice water was only the flashy tip of the iceberg. Google "Senate Launch System" for the latest.) It isn't in their genes anymore. You could put it back, but in the time that process would take, SpaceX will be there already.

There is no NASA apart from politicians. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Congress. That's not even a political statement, it's simply descriptive. If you can't trust politicians to drive our space policy, then you can't trust NASA to do it.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#85

Post by tsotha »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #73
tsotha wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, no, we would not have considered it magical. Based on television shows like Space:1999 we fully expected to have a large moon base and ray guns by 1999. My 1985 self would have looked at the iPad and said "That's all? The battery only lasts for a few hours, it's only two-dimensional, and I can't roll it. What happened, was there a nuclear war initiated dark age?"

I doubt that. The iPad is an amazing technical leap over consumer electronics circa 1985 (Pong, Pacman, grainy color TV).

Nonsense. In the previous decade we had gone from the introduction of LED watches to personal computers - by 1985 we had the Apple IIE, which is a bigger leap from what was available in 1975 than the IIE to the iPad. Kubrick included iPad-like devices in 2001 because he thought we would have them. I would have been surprised to see them earlier than 1995, but 2010? Late.

Stephenson is right, but he doesn't go far enough. It's not just the big things - since 1970 the pace of progress has been slowing down across the board.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#87

Post by mkramlich »

jerf wrote: post #84
sgentle wrote: post #14

Grr! I like Stephenson a lot but I find this argument highly disingenuous. In fact, I find most of the reactions I've seen to "the end of US spaceflight capability" sickeningly short-sighted and hyperbolic. Read the goddamn budget announcement: "Orszag said that in addition to research and development, NASA’s proposal invests in 'advance robotics and other steps that will help to inspire Americans and not just return…

"What NASA should be doing is what no private enterprise can do: highly unprofitable risky space pioneering that inspires the human race." http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112392431/spacex-sets-it... I do not know if SpaceX will make it; I'd personally bet against that timeframe, though I wouldn't bet against the goal in general. But I will guarantee this: Barring a major political turnaround in the US, SpaceX wil…

Agreed. If there's a place where I can place a cash bet that SpaceX will be the first entity to put a man on Mars, I'd do it tonight. They have the people, the vision, leadership, philosophy, and just enough of a successful track record so far to put meat into it, and de-risk it. They have momentum.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#88

Post by richcollins »

sgentle wrote: post #14

Grr! I like Stephenson a lot but I find this argument highly disingenuous. In fact, I find most of the reactions I've seen to "the end of US spaceflight capability" sickeningly short-sighted and hyperbolic. Read the goddamn budget announcement: "Orszag said that in addition to research and development, NASA’s proposal invests in 'advance robotics and other steps that will help to inspire Americans and not just return…

Let's take away money from boring and put it into interesting! How can anybody be against this?

How about we take it away from "boring" and give it back to the taxpayers from whom it was taken via coercion.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#89

Post by jwallaceparker »

tsotha wrote: post #85
jwallaceparker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that. The iPad is an amazing technical leap over consumer electronics circa 1985 (Pong, Pacman, grainy color TV).

Nonsense. In the previous decade we had gone from the introduction of LED watches to personal computers - by 1985 we had the Apple IIE, which is a bigger leap from what was available in 1975 than the IIE to the iPad. Kubrick included iPad-like devices in 2001 because he thought we would have them. I would have been surprised to see them earlier than 1995, but 2010? Late. Stephenson is right, but he doesn't go far eno…

Judging our pace of progress against technology imagined in a science fiction movie doesn't seem valid to me.

It seems to me that the pace of progress is accelerating everywhere, all the time. As it has throughout human history.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#90

Post by caf »

caf wrote: post #39
jblow wrote: post #13

I have been having similar lamentations recently. One obvious example: the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The original bridge was built in 1933; it took them less than 3.5 years to build it. Now, they are just trying to replace the eastern span (the bigger one, but hey, less than the full bridge), with technology from nearly a century later. They have been "working on it" for 9 years. It is currently scheduled to run anot…

How many workers died during the original construction?

Obviously I was too subtle, so I'll answer my own rhetorical question: there were between 23 and 28 fatal accidents during the original construction of the Bay Bridge, depending on how you count them.

This rate of industrial accidents simply isn't acceptable these days, and improved worker safety slows construction.

Post reply on HN