Top Ten Technologies that Must Die

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/Sterling1003.asp

This guy is backed by MIT? I happen to disagree with his whole list besides land mines and lie detectors.

 

[Nereid]

But he does raise an interesting question - why is it that some technologies live on, and on, and on, and others die?

For the majority (the overwhelming majority?), the answer surely is "economics". Of course, it's entirely possible, at great cost, to extend the life of an uneconomic technology (government subsidies are a favourite, but not the only, tool).

It would seem few technologies exit for ethical or moral reasons.

 

[Zantra]

How about floppy disks/drives? I mean, cmon- what use is it nowadays with networking and drive technology? If you can't email something, you can zip disk it. This is one technology which has definitely overstayed it's welcome

 

[Beren]

Originally posted by Zantra
How about floppy disks/drives? I mean, cmon- what use is it nowadays with networking and drive technology? If you can't email something, you can zip disk it. This is one technology which has definitely overstayed it's welcome

Well, the problem with that is institutions that feel Floppies can be better controlled than email (for viruses, etc.) Plus, CD-Rs are still rather expensive and difficult to use.

 

[enigma]

I don't get it either.

There are some things there which I agree with; Land Mines and nuclear weapons, for example. However, there are a bunch of technologies listed which are needed and used everyday which he claims need to be gotten rid of without offering a suitable replacement.

DVD's? What would he suggest we replace them with? Seriously. Go back to VHS? Tapes are obsolete for a _reason_.

Prisons? I don't even understand what he's rambling about airports for here. Is he honestly suggesting that we allow mass murderers out to walk around in the general population? Sure, they may not get very far with home arrest collars, but it only takes a few seconds to commit a murder. There aren't enough cops in the world to monitor dangerous criminals if they are strewn all over the country. They are brought to a single place for a _reason_.

Incandescent bulbs? You couldn't pay me enough to put flourescents in my house. I can barely stand the one in my kitchen!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
This guy is backed by MIT? I happen to disagree with his whole list besides land mines and lie detectors.

I disagree with less than you, but still - it looks like he just plain doesn't like technology in general. For example, I don't think he's figured out how NOT to ruin a DVD. I've got 75 of them, some 3+ years old, and not one that has a read problem. The Matrix was my first DVD, I got it the day it came out, and watched the lobby scene every day for about two months after class.

How about floppy disks/drives?

Yeah.

 

[Beren]

Incandescent bulbs? You couldn't pay me enough to put flourescents in my house. I can barely stand the one in my kitchen!

Actually, I incredibly agree with this one. They're so wasteful, but really, until we have a better option, there's just no doing it.

And, truthfully, flourescents are quite wasteful as well, simply because no one knows how to use them right. People don't realize it's more efficient to leave the things on for 5 hours then turn them on and off 5 times.

 

[HBar]

I need floppies for boot up disks though! Until they produce a CD drive in which you can put a CD into it while the computers is shutdown I'm sticking with my floppies. Although CD-RW are now very popular they aren't nearly as popular as floppy drives. Floppy drives are nearly standard on computers now, which makes it easier to distribute floppy disks and let the recipient write data on to them.
-HBar

 

[wimms]

Indeed the guy is weird.
I also agree that floppy disks/drives are most idiotic thing of 21st century to drag along. We have 64M usb memory sticks for same money 1M floppy costed few years back.

Light bulbs, they will get replaced by LEDs. Flourescents are crap in comparison.

 

[Sting]

I agree with landmines and nuclear weapons but prisons?

I would like for a lot of violent criminals to move into his neighborhood. Let's see if he really wants prisons to "die"...

 

[Sting]

Oh, and I still use hard disks. They're convenient and easy to carry around (just stick them in your breastpocket).

Not only that, but I have 100+ of them in my office. I want to use them before they go obsolete.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Sting
Oh, and I still use hard disks. They're convenient and easy to carry around (just stick them in your breastpocket).

Hehe, those are floppy disks. A hard disk is something you don't often remove from your computer.

Back when the 5.25" floppy was replaced by the 3.5" floppy, a lot of people thought since the case was harder on the 3.5" that it was a "hard disk." Nope. The disk itself is still floppy.

Its been a while since I heard someone call a floppy hard.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The guys a science fiction writer, trying to write Science fraction?
But I agree with the "No Nuke'm All" policy, AKA let's get rid of what we really just do not need anymore...

 

[Loren Booda]

A technology can "die," then be resurrected. Take passive solar for instance.

 

[BCRion]

This guy is living in his own science fiction universe:

Nuclear Weapons -- Nobody likes them. The thought of universal destruction is scary, but is it realistic to get rid of them? How could it be done either than magic ensuring there is no incentive for others with sinister motives from building them.

Even if we could get rid of them, would we want to? Wars are messy business whether they be conventional or nuclear. The absence of nuclear weapons makes conventional warfare much more attractive. It is always easier to make that sacrifice knowing you can actually stand a chance to win. I'd go so far as to say World War III between the West and the Soviets was prevented by the risk imposed by nuclear warfare.

As far as terrorists, these are farfetched scenarios. The stockpile of the US is very well guarded. Although I cannot say the same for others, this does not mean that nations who can protect them should not have them. Efforts to secure these things need to be stepped up sure, but destruction is unrealistic.

Coal -- This should be reduced. But done in moderation, the planet has resources to recover from any damage. It is a perfect source of energy for low income areas, but like everything it should have its limits which are far lower than the status quo.

Internal Comubustion -- Before we go and replace these we need to make sure that a hydrogen economy does not destroy the o-zone layer. Let's not be too premature with this one.

Incandescent Lightbulbs -- These should probably be phased out as there are superior technologies available that are more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Land Mines -- In the wake of modern warfare these have far less utility. I would not like to see them used except in the most desperate cases. Perhaps we could find ways to automatically deactivate these things through a coded radio signal.

Manned Spaceflight -- Until we have all out artificial intelligence, there remain things that humans can do that machines cannot, namely handle the unexpected. There are places for humans and for machines. However, eventually if we hope to ensure our survival, manned spaceflight is the only way to do it.

Prisons -- Getting rid of these is ultimately unworkable. We can fantasize about advanced technological ways of keeping criminals safe from people, but they are just fiction for now.

Cosmetic Implants -- The technologies mentioned in this section such as growing skin en-masse do not yet exist. Removing conventional ones now is silly.

Lie Detectors -- They are not 100% reliable but they are one method of trying to find the truth. The author suggests newer magic technologies and then says the Orwellian social intrusion. They have their place, but should not be a total arbiter of truth.

DVDs -- And the alternative is? There is no perfect information storage medium.

 

[Sting]

Hehe, those are floppy disks. A hard disk is something you don't often remove from your computer.

Yeppers. And what was I smoking?

I meant to say "floppy" and "hard" came out.

The disk itself is still floppy.

For someone who knows very little about computers, I'm glad I know that one.

I've dismantled so many floppies so I'm aware of the floppy-nature.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Back while I was still living in Calgary I read a newspaper report on the latest in Coal technologies, and they have come down to the point, in the ability to process the stuff, for energy, that, the only emission(s) are the remnent (solid) carbons, (ash I think) nothing more, no gases, no fumes, no dangerous pollutants (to any degree) and what is left is eminently reprocessable back into natures systems.
So this guy is, simply, technologically behind the times.

 

[Beren]

It depends on the type of coal. "Hard" coal has quite a few more products.

And the technology is there, but it's not widely used. All companies have to do is make the standards, not above them.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Beren
It depends on the type of coal. "Hard" coal has quite a few more products.
And the technology is there, but it's not widely used. All companies have to do is make the standards, not above them.

What I read was about the final testing, (Five years worth) of the process of extracting the energy, without pollutants. It is the most recent of technologies, in coal use, and does not yet have any (TBOMK) widespread use.
Sulphurus coal was once a problem, don't know if this takes care of that kind of coal's problems.

 

[Loren Booda]

Try extracting the many billion barrels of shale oil as well.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

They are apparently making use of the gas, that used to be seen as "A danger, to be vented out!" in coal mining. I'd read in a trade magazine that coal acted sort of plastic like, inasmuch as you could drill a hole through it, (looking for that gas?) and the hole could sort of close itself up, IMO strange, but neat!

 

[russ_watters]

Chemically its not that hard to process coal or oil in such a way as to make it burn considerably cleaner, however it is enormously expensive.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Chemically its not that hard to process coal or oil in such a way as to make it burn considerably cleaner, however it is enormously expensive.

Isn't it recently tested technology?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

"www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/programs/doeassess.html"[/URL]

 

[theriddler876]

money makes the world go round, as long as there's money to be made most products will stay.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Isn't it recently tested technology?

Well, I said "chemically." Technologically its a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Seriously, heat something and it decomposes. I made methane from popsicle sticks in 9th grade physical science. Piece of cake. Going from that to a system you can build and make money from is a huge deal. I don't know where such technologes stand.

The hippies mainly concern themselves with 'can it be done?' They don't generally take it any further to look at whether its really technologically/economically feasible.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I said "chemically." Technologically its a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Seriously, heat something and it decomposes. I made methane from popsicle sticks in 9th grade physical science. Piece of cake. Going from that to a system you can build and make money from is a huge deal. I don't know where such technologes stand.
The hippies mainly concern themselves with 'can it be done?' They don't generally take it any further to look at whether its really technologically/economically feasible.

That's why I mentioned what I had read while living in Calgary some years back, they had just been completing five year testing on a system for coal burning that produced basically only a small amount of residual solid ash, nothing else but the electricity after that.

Just can't seem to find a reference...yet...

 

[Tog_Neve]

I think I am along the party lines here with everyone else.

Would agree on the Nukes.

Coal-Based power
Agree with what most have said. There are ways to make it cleaner, and they have developed ways to mine it with less impact as well. I would agree that in time alternative fuel sources for energy is needed...but that will come in time.

ICE
Agree that until alternative fuel sources and technologies are more proven then ICE is here to say...and it will remain here until large HP style alternatives come out...your deisel is still one of the most efficient engines for heavy duty purposes.

The light bulb...
Again technology is getting there...but they are a ways away form disappearing.

Landmines-
Well I agree they need to go...however until warfare is a thing of the past these will be around.

Manned spacecraft
"rickety and dangerous" Really our spacecraft are safer than the aircraft we fly in on a daily basis. They are checked more regularly, there are more sensors on it than a monkey has hair on its backside. And the track history of the space program is pretty darn good in comparison to some other aspects of life.

Prisons -
way off base on that one...

Cosmetic implants.
Well the money is there and people are generally vain. And we don't have technology to substitute yet. Not like he is talking about.

DVD's
Again as stated what to substitute.

To me it sounds like he does not have a grasp of the concept that what we have is basically a median between what we had and what we are going to have. Sure 5-10 years down the road we may have a compact mini DVD that is the size of a quarter and can store 20 hours of viewing video...but we don't have it yet...and they are working on it...so it will get here. But the DVD is a good step between VCD's and that mini-DVD.

So much for my thoughts on MIT folks eh?