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

[Danger]

I hate to say this, Woolie, but it seems to me that you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to acknowledge legitimate answers.

 

[OAQfirst]

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?

Did a PC dump you recently?

 

[wolram]

I hate to say this, Woolie, but it seems to me that you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to acknowledge legitimate answers.

In a way i have, i think that no matter how powerful a computer is, it will all ways depend on input from a human, and a human to interprate the results.

So far AFAIK no one has bested einstein with or without computers, what doe's that say?
Computers are just a tool is what it says, no matter how many numbers they can crunch per second.

It all so says computers will never eliminate poverty, and coputer (power) will all ways be a tool of the few.

 

[Danger]

Of course they're tools; nobody has ever disputed that. They are tools, however, that allow us to research and construct things that have never been possible before. As a man who makes his living with tools, I'm sure you would agree that spanners and micrometers make you far more productive than you could be with your bare hands.

 

[turbo]

Thanks Lurch, Turbo.

Turbo, you explain study not knowledge, i say again or restate, how has computer power increased our knowledge since say A Einstein.

Knowledge cannot be expanded without observation, study, and interpretation of results. You may argue that we have not had a remarkable resurgence in knowledge in cosmology, and I would agree with you. Still, advances cannot be made without a LOT of sweat, and cautious interpretation of the information gleaned.

Computers are tools. Think of a carpenter. Today's carpenters have table-saws, routers, edgers, planers, etc. Still, the prettiest furniture that I have ever seen has been hand-made. I bought my wife a chair for Christmas about 10 years ago. It is a very light dressing-table chair with a woven cane seat. The chair is made of tiger maple and features saber legs, beautifully-proportioned leg braces and an intricately-carved back splat with deep-relief scroll-work and a central decoration in the form of a conifer cone or perhaps a stylized pineapple. That chair is at least 150 years old and has never seen a power tool. The man who designed and built that chair had vision, artistic sense, and skill. Power tools can never confer those.

There are some very smart people with some very good ideas trying to expand our knowledge of the universe. Whether or not their use of computers can help their progress... well, there is a lot of grunt work to be done to explore and validate/refute their ideas, and using computers wisely to exploit their strengths as tools can help speed things up.

 

[wolram]

Knowledge cannot be expanded without observation, study, and interpretation of results. You may argue that we have not had a remarkable resurgence in knowledge in cosmology, and I would agree with you. Still, advances cannot be made without a LOT of sweat, and cautious interpretation of the information gleaned.

Computers are tools. Think of a carpenter. Today's carpenters have table-saws, routers, edgers, planers, etc. Still, the prettiest furniture that I have ever seen has been hand-made. I bought my wife a chair for Christmas about 10 years ago. It is a very light dressing-table chair with a woven cane seat. The chair is made of tiger maple and features saber legs, beautifully-proportioned leg braces and an intricately-carved back splat with deep-relief scroll-work and a central decoration in the form of a conifer cone or perhaps a stylized pineapple. That chair is at least 150 years old and has never seen a power tool. The man who designed and built that chair had vision, artistic sense, and skill. Power tools can never confer those.

There are some very smart people with some very good ideas trying to expand our knowledge of the universe. Whether or not their use of computers can help their progress... well, there is a lot of grunt work to be done to explore and validate/refute their ideas, and using computers wisely to exploit their strengths as tools can help speed things up.

I am in total agreement with you Turbo, computers will speed things up, if they are asked the right questions ,and the results agree with observations.

 

[Pythagorean]

I am in total agreement with you Turbo, computers will speed things up, if they are asked the right questions ,and the results agree with observations.

Some problems don't have analytical solutions. We could do the numerical solutions ourselves, sure, but we'd be about 20 years behind where we are now.

For instance, Quantum Mechanics applied to the hydrogen atom is analytical, and you can kind of fudge some numbers to make the solution to helium usable, but any atom higher than that requires long, tedious, numerical solutions.

Because of the computational work in QM, chemistry has a lot more to talk about now. I don't know how far along our genetics studies would be without them either, but I suspect not very far at all. This has helped us understand medical sciences and create better medical technologies. (I'm guessing we wouldn't have a very useful MRI without computational sciences). So in the respect of medicine, it definitely helps the poor.

 

[wolram]

Some problems don't have analytical solutions. We could do the numerical solutions ourselves, sure, but we'd be about 20 years behind where we are now.

For instance, Quantum Mechanics applied to the hydrogen atom is analytical, and you can kind of fudge some numbers to make the solution to helium usable, but any atom higher than that requires long, tedious, numerical solutions.

Because of the computational work in QM, chemistry has a lot more to talk about now. I don't know how far along our genetics studies would be without them either, but I suspect not very far at all. This has helped us understand medical sciences and create better medical technologies. (I'm guessing we wouldn't have a very useful MRI without computational sciences). So in the respect of medicine, it definitely helps the poor.

Pythagorean, i have no quibble with the middle, it is the top and bottom i am questioning.

 

[russ_watters]

No misunderstanding Danger, it seems that every one wants to blatantly over look
what i am saying.

No, you're just blatantly ignoring what people are saying.

1, how has computer power increased our knowledge of the universe.

If you literally mean the universe (as opposed to the laws of the unvierse), then the Hubble is a great example of a telescope that depends on computers to function and has revolutionized our understanding of the universe.

2 How has computer power helped those that can not afford technology.

Ok, so if CD players, tvs, and cars are out, then you're basically asking about people who live in 3rd world countries only since almost everyone in 1st world countries has a cd player, tv, or car.

In that case, there is no direct benefit for a peasant farmer in rural China. That's basically by definition, since "direct" benefit means they have to own a computer. But the global poverty rate has dropped by 50% in the past 20 years, so anyone who has benefited from that (ie, most of the population of the world, including those in rural China) have benefitted from computers.

 

[Pythagorean]

Pythagorean, i have no quibble with the middle, it is the top and bottom i am questioning.

I assure you, if we could find an analytical solution, we'd much rather prefer that! Computation is what we found, it's the only thing that we have that could solve our problems in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps there's another way, sure, but we haven't found it yet (and trust me, people are STILL looking. This is not a dead subject!)

These numerical solutions (the computation itself) are doable by humans, and algorithms can even be made to make them quicker, but we're literally talking about hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper and hundreds of pencils. You also have to consider all the errors we make with pencil and paper (even the most established science/math pros still make mistakes)

At this rate, one physicist could work on one problem his whole life and only partially solve it. With computers, a physicist can pump through hundreds (if not thousands) of problems. The effective outcome is such a dramatic improvement, I don't see how you could ignore the impact of that on sciences, and all the helpful applications of science.

I will give you this: When it comes to giant models that try to make predictions about huge, complex systems (like the weather), there's an obvious failure rate there. When it comes to something like QM (where you model a single atom), the results have been used and applied and are making the world a better (err.. more comfortable?) place as we speak, without a doubt.

 

[Danger]

But the global poverty rate has dropped by 50% in the past 20 years, so anyone who has benefited from that (ie, most of the population of the world, including those in rural China) have benefitted from computers.

True. Even without increasing incomes or status, the distribution of emergency supplies to 3rd world countries relies upon computers ranging from aircraft electronics to sustainability studies and routing plans. There are an awful lot of people alive today who wouldn't be without them.

 

[glondor]

Sounds like you are looking for A.I. Wolram. Real human scale A.I. does not exist yet. It may not ever. When a computer can think, we may be blessed or cursed.

 

[russ_watters]

So far AFAIK no one has bested einstein with or without computers, what doe's that say?

You are so wrong and so ignoring everything that everyone is saying. What Einstein knew about the universe is nothing compared to what we know now: Every physicist on this site knows more about the universe than Einstein did! E=MC^2 might have been part of the basis of nuclear weapons and power, but Einstein had nowhere close to the knowledge or understanding necessary to build a nuclear plant or weapon. You're wrong, plain and simple.

Computers are just a tool is what it says, no matter how many numbers they can crunch per second.

No one has suggested that computers are anything more than a tool: you didn't ask that, you asked how they help people. And the obvious answer is that they help by being a tool!

It all so says computers will never eliminate poverty, and coputer (power) will all ways be a tool of the few.

Also very, very wrong, as I already said. Poverty has dropped by half in the last 20 years, mostly due to the economic improvements pushed by technology: ie, the computer revolution.

 

[Gokul43201]

As yet no one has given any evidence of how computer power has improved our understanding of the universe.

Are you being serious with this question?

Take a trip to the nearest university, get to the physics department, and walk into any lab/office, sit down for a while and watch what happens there over the course of a single day (without getting thrown out).

 

[Gokul43201]

The peasant farmer in rural China benefited from the National and Provincial government offices being outfitted with computers which were used in the design and implementation of countless number of infrastructure development projects that provide the farmer with a water supply, electricity and access to roadways.

 

[turbo]

I should note here that I wrote custom application software for legal practices, real estate agencies, manufacturers, big trucking companies, etc, when there was no flexible off-the-shelf programs available to address their needs (think '87-'89 time-frame), and even though I helped them do more with fewer people, they could not let go of the paper-file legacy, so they probably generated, collated, and filed more paper reports after my intervention than before. Still, allowing a trucking company to chart its receivables by age helped them to make their case for expanding their line of credit at a bank. Writing a program to allow a trucking company to optimize fueling (making drivers fuel in states that apportioned fuel taxes and rebated taxes for miles not driven in those states) saved the trucking companies mucho dinero. Writing a point-of-sale program for a large manufacturer of wood-harvesting equipment was a challenge. The owner wanted instant access (by part OEM number or substitute alias) to every item in his inventory, including how many were on hand, what he had paid for them, and when he should re-order. I also gave him the ability to switch between first-in-last-out and first-in-first-out inventory accounting, with a STRONG program-enforced caveat that he could not implement this change without the prior approval of his accountant, lest the IRS fine him. I also flowed all internal parts sales (for manufacturing and repair in his shop) and all retail counter-sales directly to the receivables of his accounting program, which I had also heavily modified.

None of this stuff fed starving little children in 3rd-world countries, but it sure helped regional businesses not only survive, but thrive. The computer is only a tool, but in the right hands, it can do a lot. My "powerful" home PC at the time was an IBM Model 50 PS2 with a 286 processor, one meg of Ram and a 20 meg HD. I brought entire application programs (usually compiled) to my clients on a floppy disk. Things have changed in 20 years, but the leverage that properly-used computation can bring to a business has not.

 

[Pythagorean]

I thought of another non-computational benefit of computers:
data storage itself has been very helpful in record keeping.

 

[Danger]

Out of the mouths of babes...
Pythagorean, that is probably the most important aspect of the entire argument. Congrats for being the first to think of it.
I used to have to drive for 1/2 hour to get to a decent library, and now I can get just about any info that I need (given proper scrutinization) in a matter of seconds.

 

[turbo]

I thought of another non-computational benefit of computers:
data storage itself has been very helpful in record keeping.

This point alone has been a bone of contention for over 20 years. When the storage of public records was predicated on paper records, certified copies, etc, the digital records were viewed as redundant, like wearing both a belt and suspenders. I spent many, many hours with business-owners and managers trying to convince them that if they adopted robust data-backup procedures they could eliminate a lot of printing, filing, etc. That was REAL tough. One place (a dental practice) had done this willingly for another data-service company, but when they wanted a server upgrade and I showed up to perform that, I got curious about their tape back-up system. The office manager (practice-owner's wife) had dutifully kept and rotated backup tapes every day for years. I tried to read and verify any data off those tapes only to find out that they had been using a poorly-coded program that generated an error every time they tried to make a backup, failed to make a backup, and spit out an empty tape every night. Colorado made some pretty good tape drives and put out some decent software, but fly-by-night jerks preyed on small businesses and left them exposed.

The receivables of a medical practice form the basis for their credit-line with local lenders, and that dental practice was operating with a gun to its head for several years - with no clue. Jerry (the owner of the practice) got me a LOT of business. He got to talk to lots of other business-owners when all they could do was open and (periodically) spit.

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

 

[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 dependent 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 dependent 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.