|
Quite so. Too much faith in technology, and not enough faith in our own ability to solve our problems.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
But isn't technology the result of people trying to solve problems?
.
|
|
|
|
|
0bx wrote: But isn't technology the result of people trying to solve problems?
Yes, except that in many cases, we create technology to replace common sense. And of course, when you solve one problem you inevitably create several new problems.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And of course, when you solve one problem you inevitably create several new problems.
Which seems to be the immanent problem of all technology; it comes without side-effects.
There's nothing wrong in having faith in technology, but we should be careful not to put our faith in the wrong concepts, most of the time simply because of economic reasons. Prominent example: Fracking.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why when solving we apply occam's razor to see if the solution doesn't create more problems than it solves. If we fail to do so, it's human failure, not a technological failure.
Technology works, even if it doesn't work. That's something you can have faith in.
Human's ability and intentions on the other hand...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Those who believe in technology faithlessly will not survive re-formatting.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course we have way too much faith in technology...That's why the believers try to fit every new (or re-made) buzzword to every problem...But it also clear that technology didn't solved every real problem (but created some) - otherwise we already had stopped to search for the solution!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
At times, yes. We believe our modern vehicle engines with embedded technology or air bags are safe. Sometimes, they fail... with disasterous results. Generally, safe, but not always.
We trust technology based on statistical probability and take our chances.
But, what if we don't? Should we go back to riding horses? Can't use a buggy or saddle, those were 'techological advances' at some point in time.
Or, hunt with rocks found on the ground instead of sharpened rocks, arrows, rifles, etc? Anything beyond what is found with modifying it becomes a technological advance.
We, as humans, are supposed to be able to use reason. Only we can decide what we are willing to live with.
|
|
|
|
|
As Google faces an antitrust probe from European regulators, some analysts are questioning whether the California tech giant's dominance has already peaked. Good. Then we can get back to mistrusting Microsoft, IBM, and AltaVista
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: AltaVista
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft looks to be readying two more new productivity apps: A cloud clipboard called OneClip, and a Windows Phone version of its Revolve calendar-contact manager mash-up. For all those times you've wanted to copy text from one machine and paste in another
|
|
|
|
|
Intel is a great example of a key technology partner who is investing and collaborating with Microsoft to advance the web. Does this mean we're going to have "Intel Inside" stickers on our browsers?
|
|
|
|
|
Over its 40 years of doing business, some of the best views of Microsoft came from its workers’ ground-level perspective of the company’s ups and downs. "Nothing's gonna touch you in these golden years"
|
|
|
|
|
Canadian telecommunications company BlackBerry Ltd. has once again made their ways into the news with lot of gossiping taking place about its acquisition, and this time there’s Microsoft at the other end of the story. At least this will keep one of them from being #4 in the market
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately bugs are a part of software development, and despite our best efforts to write software correctly from the start we spend a lot of time in the debugger. Never hurts to review the basics
|
|
|
|
|
and despite our best efforts to write software correctly from the start
It is absolutely impossible to write Javascript, especially along with [insert your favorite js framework/library stack here] without running the browser in debug mode, and usually two or three browsers because they will f-up on different things. Absolutely f***ing impossible.
So while I try my best to write software correctly from the start, the elephanting language, the technology stack, and browser all conspire to make that ef'in impossible.
What a f'ed up programming world, is web development.
Marc
modified 25-May-15 15:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely right. Java script must die.
|
|
|
|
|
Its not just Javascript, the whole stack is ill-conceived. That's what happens I guess when:
- Tim Berners-Lee invents the web, but fails to learn from (or even be aware of) existing hypermedia technologies.
- Brendan Eich is given 2 weeks to write a language (if I recall correctly).
- CSS fails to learn from any existing layout technology.
Along the way, forget about modular design - the browser has to support everything and turn into a bloated behemoth, add in a few ill-conceived extension technologies like ActiveX (thankfully now only getting occasional outings from the retirement home), Java applets and Flash.
The whole stack could do with a rethink. Sadly, there seems to be little evidence of that.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: The whole stack could do with a rethink.
What, and obsolete several million Javascript programmers? 
We've gotten to a point (as with many of our infrastructures) where they are so ingrained as to be almost impossible to replace.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: The whole stack could do with a rethink.
Exactly. Microsoft did just this and came up with XAML, which as we all know is a simple, intuitive, and easy to learn alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was just me...
|
|
|
|
|
There are few who doubt Windows has been a successful product for Microsoft. One of the first truly successful versions of Windows was Windows 3.0 and the classic OS is now 25 years old. "An elegant weapon for a more civilized age"
|
|
|
|
|
Its a bit generous describing Windows 3.0 as an O/S.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
O/S: Something the printer drivers are written for
(Which of course means that my favourite OS of all time is WordPervert) 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
I suppose their cache of elliptical curve crypto patents might be good for something, but IIRC most of the early patents on the process that've been blocking any widespread adoption of the method should be nearing end of life anyway.
