How has computer power impacted the lives of those who cannot afford technology?

[RonL]

I am a fan of computers and the advancement of computer power , computer power, (calculations per sec) has improved life for the privileged (any one that can afford technology) but how much has computer power improved the life of those that can not.

And how has computer power increased our knowledge of the universe?

I briefly scanned the thread and a lot of answers looked good, but the power of the computer, to me is exemplified in a few examples, such as the scanning electron microscope, flying of jet aircraft by adjusting controls faster than humanly possible, making possible surgery on patients, by doctors in some faraway location with the use of wireless navigated controls.
Yes the computer is a tool, but it is a tool that takes man far beyond the physical limits of our human bodies.

Ron

Let me add that, the homeless, hungry, and oppressed, around the world can be represented in real time, to those that might make a difference in their lives.

 

[turbo]

Adding to what turbo said, think of all the costs that are saved with the help of data storage and how the savings can be distributed to the customer (poor and rich alike). Of course, there's no guarantee that every company will do this, but thanks to competition, I think most do.

There's yet another example of how it helps the poor.

When companies can cut overhead and reduce costs, they will often undercut competitors, and the cost-benefit gets spread around. When companies hired me to make their businesses more efficient, they could try to steal market-share from competitors, try to expand into markets that they had not been competitive in, try to reduce their overhead while keeping their current customers/rates, etc, etc. Some businesses (like the manufacturer of wood-harvesting equipment in northern Maine and Canada) spent a bit extra, expanded, and used their "digital" advantage to take control of their markets. I suspect that a computer in a carefully-opened and re-sealed box probably entered Canada with a mundane 286 PC with a 10 meg HD loaded with many, many weeks worth of my custom software entered Canada with a minor VAT (or similar) tax penalty to form the basis of an energized and more efficient operation at his Canadian location. I contracted to do the programming - I am not complicit in any pre-NAFTA trade violations, though he did open up another Maine dealership soon after...

 

[LURCH]

The Internet is a glorified telephone, it is the number crunchers i am talking about, and no one wants to really address, if computer power increased over night by 100 fold how would it help our knowledge of the universe, and the people that can not afford technology?

But that's what we've been saying; the question is, "the people who can't afford what technology?". Everyone can afford some. The more advanced today's tech gets, the more affordable yesterday's tech will get.

 

[Proton Soup]

i find the first graph http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/total_energy.html" interesting. the change in trend of the energy line occurs around the introduction of personal computing. 1985 was the year microsoft released windows. ubiquitous computing appears to be a GDP multiplier. question is, is GDP a tide that raises all boats? does everyone benefit from this, even if they don't "use" it?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/images/energy_use_1949-2004.jpg

and i notice this also correlates with a question i had in another thread, about why the DJIA started growing exponentially around 1980. maybe the next market crash will be when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law" fails.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

 

[wolram]

If one looks at the computer (power) map, by now all Americans should be ascendant beings

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/17/business/20081118-super-graphic.html

 

[Pythagorean]

If one looks at the computer (power) map, by now all Americans should be ascendant beings

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/17/business/20081118-super-graphic.html

What's your argument here?

 

[wolram]

What's your argument here?

My argument is that computer power of itself is not human knowledge, computers will all ways depend on what a human can think to put into it, computers do not solve problems.

Computers are not making the world a better place, that is dependant on a very few (moguls) who can control policy.

Computers have not provided us with a single proof of the physics of the universe, or bettered general relativity.

N body simulations have not solved the dark matter problem, it will take a human to ask the right questions, then may be a computer will hasten the calculations, but it is all so possible that all is needed is a blackboard and chalk.

 

[russ_watters]

and i notice this also correlates with a question i had in another thread, about why the DJIA started growing exponentially around 1980. maybe the next market crash will be when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law" fails.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Where's that thread, because overall the DJIA has been growing exponentially since it started. It has averaged something like 8% a year since it's inception. Your graph only goes back to 1930, but the whole graph is on an exponential scale!

 

[russ_watters]

My argument is that computer power of itself is not human knowledge, computers will all ways depend on what a human can think to put into it, computers do not solve problems.

Eveyone understands this, no one is arguing against it, and it is irrelevant to your question in the OP. So it is pointless to keep saying it.

Computers are not making the world a better place, that is dependant on a very few (moguls) who can control policy.

You've been shown clear examples of why this is wrong.

Computers have not provided us with a single proof of the physics of the universe, or bettered general relativity.

You've been given clear examples of why this is wrong.

N body simulations have not solved the dark matter problem, it will take a human to ask the right questions, then may be a computer will hasten the calculations, but it is all so possible that all is needed is a blackboard and chalk.

So what? Just because computers haven't helped solve every problem doesn't mean they haven't solved any.

Wolram, you have a wrong idea in your head that you are sticking to despite overwhealming arguments to the contrary. The only way for that to work for you is to just plain ignore those arguments and parrot your own wrong claims over and over. That style of argument (or, rather, lack of argument) does not meet forum guidelines. Thread locked.