Live data from Hacker News

Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

worldpolicy.org

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#101
post #17

I'm from a different generation than Neal Stephenson. I grew up inspired by my parents' old IBM XT. The Apple II at school. My TI-83 programmable graphing calculator. Not space flight. I continue to be inspired every year by the innovations in tech startups, and that's just the field I happen to live and work in - the biomedical field in the last 10 years has made orders of magnitude of progress understanding the hum…

I doubt that any sci-fi writer wrote about you buying shoes and finding old friends.. which is the point of the article.

...except that one guy doing the screenplay for I, Robot.

:(

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#102
post #57
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Female emancipation was even bigger social change, but it wasn't the article's point. If we restrict ourselves to realm of technology, smartphones are not that much of a breakthrough. I had my Nokia and my Palm back in 1990s, it wasn't really that much different.

Your Palm in the 90's had a 16 Mhz processor and 1 MB of memory. An iPhone has a 1 Ghz processor and 32 GB of memory. If that's not "much different" you have a strange understanding of scale. And that was only 15 years ago, not 50.

My Palm had a graphic touchscreen and handwriting recognition. A decent organizer package, and a thriving market of 3rd party applications. I could use it to surf the web, do email, IRC, or remote control my TV.

The smartphones went a big way in usability and price department, but it's not any kind of qualitative difference.

This was the time when anyone expected VRML-based web and augumented reality just around the corner. If you told me back then about iPhone in 2010, I would have really struggled feigning surprize to mask the disappointment.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#103

sorry, i don't share his vision of technology grandeur. - the moon and mars (let alone the other planets) are _not_ hospitable to humans. pure fantasy to consider fruitful colonization. - the next stop outside of our solar system is lifetimes away, who would actually want to live in a moving space station? yuck - more efficient energy and transportation systems - why? so we can cram even more people onto this planet?…

efficient energy and transportation systems aren't part of sustainable living? How quite sure how that fits.

The crackpots tend to be the "Everyone, back to nature! Let's all dress in mouldy sheep, mine mud, and eat fallen apples" variety.

True sustainability is about managing both individual impact, and global impact. Efficient energy systems, transportation, and food production might allow a global population of 10Bn to operate on a smaller whatever-footprint than where we are now.

Dealing with a population increase is going to be easier than convincing everyone what is, and how to maintain, a stable population. 1-child-per-family rules are unlikely to hold much sway in what we currently consider 'civilised countries'.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#104
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video skyping is a victory of hardware development, not software. The software methodologies are not fundamentally different from the 1970s -- they are faster, and (arguably) easier in certain ways, but code is still written one line at a time, building logical constructs that have been around for decades. What has changed is the amount of code that a device is capable of executing per second, and that is what has en…

I think you're overlooking the many algorithmic advances in video & audio codecs in that time period too. It certainly has NOT been case of the software guys sitting around since the 70s waiting for the hardware guys to catch up.

The 'advances' in video & audio codecs require more hardware to encode and decode them. It's not like I can decode a blue ray disk on a Pentium 4.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#105
post #58
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried that - the 90s said "Great, they finally made the Newton useable. Good to see Moore's Law has kept up the pace."

I like how you just ignored every other argument the OP mentioned just to make your snarky comment.

Well, saying that anyone in the 90s would be surprized by an oversized PDA is also kinda snarky, no?

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#106
The comment about engineers and patent searches is pretty spot-on. I've seen many compelling efforts prematurely abandoned due to previous patents. Hearing this from Neal Stephenson strikes me as ironic given his employment at Intellectual Ventures.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#107
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's wrong to say that there has been little improvement in software, in both our techniques of building it and the body that is in existence. I think the advance from the disconnected dumb home microcomputer of 1985 to the globally connected iPad of today is comparable to the advance from the telegraph to television. I think it's easy to underestimate how far we've come when you've lived through the change.…

> the disconnected dumb home microcomputer of 1985 to the globally connected iPad of today But the microcomputer of 1985 was globally connected too! And that did seem like quite a technological advance: here in one's own home, a machine that, via phone lines, can exchange messages worldwide! I agree that the number of people globally connected has increased, but it seems more incremental; a matter of economics and in…

Mass production and magnification is a qualitative change.

Neal Stephenson knows better than he shows in this article.

The

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#108

The fuckery is in the details. I, too, wonder why so much of technological progress seems to have stalled. In a single century we went from the mass production of the automobile all the way to space; from telegraph to television; from typewriters to microcomputers. What an amazing period of technological development! There had been nothing like it in our history. Like the perhaps somewhat apocryphal Renaissance, we m…

It seems to me that the relative stagnation in space exploration is that there is no reason to move forward. Commercially, there's practically no incentive to move beyond geostationary orbit. Militarily, probably not either. And those are the two most powerful motivators around.

I heard a talk where it was suggested that the thing to aim for is to mine a small near-Earth asteroid for valuable ores. The hurdles are small compared to, say, going to Mars, and there's a commercial payoff. But even that requires a bunch of technology that doesn't exist and are at this point too far-fetched an investment for private development.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#109

I enjoy Stephenson's writing, and I think he must be a really smart guy. Which is why I'm puzzled by this reasoning: 1) Science and engineering aren't chasing anything audacious and world-changing anymore. 2) The blame lies partly with the fact that we're living in a world changed by pervasive, cheap communications and networking technology that would have seemed unthinkably audacious just a generation ago. There is…

"But it's had a much worse track record with communications. There are no cell phones (or cell-phone-like devices) in Neuromancer."

There is the matrix though, which isn't a bad vision of the Internet; its global, all the big databanks are connected to it, commerce (banks etc) is transacted on it. I think that was doing a pretty good job at predicting future communications in 1984.

You are right about the lack of cell phones - there's a scene with payphones in Istanbul that seems really out of place in 'the future' now.

"Stephenson's own Snow Crash features an international computer network with a virtual-reality interface that seems incredibly cumbersome and inconvenient compared compared to the actual web."

I think this is a little unfair.

I always thought the point of the Metaverse in Snow Crash was for real time human interaction; Hiro has his virtual office, librarian, and 'Earth' as interfaces for high speed information retrieval.

The metaverse, as described, is limited, in some ways, but that's by design.

I'm reminded of the bit in Snow Crash where Stephenson talks about Juanita building the software that maps real life facial expressions onto avatar facial expressions, and how important that is for business. This is something that's still unsolved. Humans have a lot of hardware that allows high bandwidth face to face communication; we pick up on very subtle facial cues, for example.

But no one has really cracked the problem of such 'high emotional bandwidth' Internet hangouts. We see things like the Google+ hangout feature - but they don't really work, as hangouts. Where do you go online if you want to hang out, and communicate with other humans? Yahoo chat? Facebook? Are these really optimal forms of human communication? I don't personally believe so.

I think Stephenson sketched his metaverse as a virtual reality interface that's solving human communication problems that the web still hasn't come close to solving.

Re: Neal Stephenson: Innovation Starvation

#110

sorry, i don't share his vision of technology grandeur. - the moon and mars (let alone the other planets) are _not_ hospitable to humans. pure fantasy to consider fruitful colonization. - the next stop outside of our solar system is lifetimes away, who would actually want to live in a moving space station? yuck - more efficient energy and transportation systems - why? so we can cram even more people onto this planet?…

efficient energy and transportation systems aren't part of sustainable living? How quite sure how that fits. The crackpots tend to be the "Everyone, back to nature! Let's all dress in mouldy sheep, mine mud, and eat fallen apples" variety. True sustainability is about managing both individual impact, and global impact. Efficient energy systems, transportation, and food production might allow a global population of 10…

your 10Bn will either grow (yet again) after another round of efficiency measures or collapse from disease/war. again, take the long view - where does this lead?

btw, i don't have the answer .. i don't want to go back to the mud, and i don't want to live in some kind of 'Logan's Run' scenario either. but i recognize that something has to give. the trajectory is alarming and my point is that technology won't be the answer because we ultimately live on a planet of finite resources.

Post reply on HN