491–500 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What specifically in the video are you responding to?
The vision. Don't you see it? If we can pull this off, technology thereafter will be embedded into our consciousness. The reality, as we see it, will be transformed. We as human beings will literally become "supermen", in the sense that we will be able to "see" so much more than we could ever imagine. To an extent, this is a human evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know you or your background but I'm going to guess you may not be part of that younger generation (late high school, early college years) who was literally born with a computer in their crib and came into their teen years with with a smart phone in their hand. I'm often reminded of the divide between them and my generation (born in the mid 70's) when I visit friends who have children that age, or even in publ…
As a tech guy in his forties, I find these arguments hilarious - especially when my own generation had the same things said about television ("They won't know personal contact or relationships!") , video games...every new thing is the end of human society as we know it. Until it isn't. I mean, honestly, stop being so myopic. There were people who decried the STEAM ENGINE. There were people - sometimes, legitimate jou…
~ Samuel Butler, 1863
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landing on the moon was only quite possibly the pinnacle moment in human technological and scientific achievement, and one of the watershed moments of civilization. Google took something that already existed and made it less of a hassle. Its an achievement not even in the same league.
'watershed moment of civilisation'? Really? What profound social changes happened because of the moon shot. Yes, technological achievement, I'm not disputing that. Did it end the cold war? Did it even make a dint on the Vietnam war? In terms of changes to civilisation, the moon shot pales in comparison to the civil rights movements of the same era, along with the end of colonialism. Besides, I like how you classify g…
Indeed, the massive social changes from further internet uptake since 2000 seem much more attributable to everyone having 24x7 internet access as a result of smart phones, and I'd give Apple and Verizon/AT&T credit for that. It was Apple that kicked off the trend of putting an internet-capable smart phone in everyone's pocket and Verizon and the telcos that put in place the infrastructure to service them.
When some guy on the subway with a camera attached to his face starts staring at me .. my desire is going to be to rip them off his face and stomp on them. enjoy your intellectual leashes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'watershed moment of civilisation'? Really? What profound social changes happened because of the moon shot. Yes, technological achievement, I'm not disputing that. Did it end the cold war? Did it even make a dint on the Vietnam war? In terms of changes to civilisation, the moon shot pales in comparison to the civil rights movements of the same era, along with the end of colonialism. Besides, I like how you classify g…
The civil rights movement was important, but there were places in the world at the time where black people could walk into the same restaurant as whites. The end of colonialism was important, if you were Indian. The Vietnam war was important, but then again, World War 2 was important, and so was World War 1, and so was Hannibal crossing the Alps. With the moon landing, for the first time human beings were able to vie…
Edit: I also find it weird that you're characterising the social effects and fallout of WW2 as being less powerful in terms of civilisation change than a photo from the moon. Really, this is just geek romance talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The uptake of the web was on its way, but google was an incredible catalyst for it. I remember search at the time and it was woeful - google made it an invisible task that let you get at content much more readily. GPS is great, sure. Don't interpret me as saying that NASA is a minnow. But to be facetious, good luck using GPS without a map :) but doesn't even really advance the state of the art I think we'll have to a…
> The uptake of the web was on its way, but Google was an incredible catalyst for it. By the end of 1999, Google was averaging 7 million searches per day: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/12/google-in-2000.html . This was an increase of from only 10,000 searches per day at the end of 1998. Alta Vista was at 80 million searches per day by the end of 1997. Google had less than 1% of the search market at the end of…
Similarly 'access to the internet' isn't the same as use of it. Those 100 million weren't using the internet with any degree of the pervasiveness we see today.
It absorbed all the highly talented engineers
All of them? Wow.
developed the technology that defined the time
Sure, if you co-opt anyone who used steel at all into "the steel industry" and hence make them defacto members of US Steel for your argument.
made the billionaires
I guess I really am fighting a losing battle in calling Coke something other than a tech company...
I am seriously concerned about this. I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it. But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time w…
I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate that you put the time in to write that out, but honestly I'm hearing this kind of argument from so many quarters ("we never look up!" "we all talk, but we never converse !" etc etc) recently that it's starting to get obnoxious. Conversation is not dead. People have been moaning about how we're all becoming socially isolated since the publication of the first novel. The art…
You're not offering anything more than an assertion that they're wrong, though. That is, you're using the same anecdata standard of evidence that they are: "My friends and I have cell phones but we talk to each other..."
More serious thinkers than you and I have made actual measurements that show our frequency of in-person, in-public type socializing and civic engagement really has been in long-term decline for many decades. VHS would be one of the culprits, yes, and now so would smart-phones, tablets, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The uptake of the web was on its way, but Google was an incredible catalyst for it. By the end of 1999, Google was averaging 7 million searches per day: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/12/google-in-2000.html . This was an increase of from only 10,000 searches per day at the end of 1998. Alta Vista was at 80 million searches per day by the end of 1997. Google had less than 1% of the search market at the end of…
Again, you're only giving credit to google for the first year of their product. NASA was nowhere near the moon in 1959. Where's the level playing field here? Similarly 'access to the internet' isn't the same as use of it. Those 100 million weren't using the internet with any degree of the pervasiveness we see today. It absorbed all the highly talented engineers All of them? Wow. developed the technology that defined…
Right. But the .com bubble was ending the first year of Google's product in 2000, while commercialization of space technology through things like Space X (which are leveraging NASA's developments) is happening 50 years after 1959. If you're going to give Google credit for internet uptake, you have to look at how relevant Google was at the time that internet uptake was happening. Something that wasn't relevant until into 2000's couldn't have been a "catalyst" for a phenomenon that roaring by the late 1990's.
> Those 100 million weren't using the internet with any degree of the pervasiveness we see today.
Because of Google? Or because of smart phones connected to internet 24x7, because of increased bandwidth making Hulu and the like possible, because of Amazon, because of Facebook, etc? I don't see why Google gets credit for all these things.
Do a thought experiment. Say we don't have Google, or its clones like Bing, etc. And say we don't have a replacement. Say we just have Altavista-level search technology. How much of your daily internet usage is still possible? Probably most of it. Most internet usage is on sights that everyone knows that are wildly popular: Facebook, Twitter, etc. Now, do the same thought experiment for the iPhone, again assuming nobody "would have invented it anyway." Say we just still have Palm Treos. What's the impact on Facebook, Twitter, etc?
> Sure, if you co-opt anyone who used steel at all into "the steel industry" and hence make them defacto members of US Steel for your argument.
You're co-opting everything that has happened on the internet since 2000 and attributing it to Google for your argument. And U.S. Steel is arguably a much better example--they invented a lot of the core steel production technology that made all the other uses possible/practicable. Google's search technology didn't make Facebook or Twitter possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't get why everybody is so upset over the aesthetics of these things? Nobody is going to force you to walk around with these on at all times. Like anything else, you'll choose when to put them on and use them. The alternative today is to walk around with your arms up holding your phone in front of you. Is that any better? The long-long term version of this looks like contact-lenses. We're just not there ye…
If the first iPhone was embarrassing to use, would it have hindered or enhanced adoption? Jonathan Ive will design a nice version, Apple will own the market, and google will aghast "but... we were first...". Google glasses look cool as an object - it's just that they look bad when worn. For a start, make them symmetrical (even if the "other" projector is fake).
For me, it's not the asymmetry of the projector but the massive back-end. You can tell even Google knows this is unattractive because their model is wearing a hoodie to cover it up.
While I respect the attempt to make a standalone device, I think Google would be better off introducing this as a lower-cost peripheral for those who already have android smartphones. I think this would get them market penetration and slim down the design (but that's just speculation).
Also, it's probably safe to say that early adopters would already have a smartphone, and if they don't it could be a game changer to get people on Android.