Technimosity

[dilloduck]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

 

[Mr. H.]

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

 

[dilloduck]

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

biggest problem----people think they know how to use it and they think it's reliable.

 

[Mr. H.]

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

biggest problem----people think they know how to use it and they think it's reliable.

Who cares if it's bright, shiny, new, cutting edge, and does groovy stuff?

"It's a can opener, it's an asphalt spreader - it's 67 tools in one!"

 

[dilloduck]

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

biggest problem----people think they know how to use it and they think it's reliable.

Who cares if it's bright, shiny, new, cutting edge, and does groovy stuff?

"It's a can opener, it's an asphalt spreader - it's 67 tools in one!"

none of which works as well as talking to each other directly.

 

[Mr. H.]

biggest problem----people think they know how to use it and they think it's reliable.

Who cares if it's bright, shiny, new, cutting edge, and does groovy stuff?

"It's a can opener, it's an asphalt spreader - it's 67 tools in one!"

none of which works as well as talking to each other directly.

WHAT?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

Oh, the irony.

You both have a computer and post on message boards.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

Consumerism screws up technology. They make useless changes in computer hardware and software to have different styles year after year.

There are major corporations that are still running COBOL programs from the 1960s. So why does software need to be upgraded every year and then they stop providing support for the old version?

It is not about making good use of computers it is about cash flow.

This stuff could easily be made more than 4 times as reliable as it is. With passive backplanes most desktop computers could have been made upgradeable by changing the circuit board with the CPU and memory. Why buy a case and power supply and most other components. Keep a computer 10 years or more instead of upgrading every 3 years.

The technology is screwed up for the money.

psik

 

[Sherry]

Do you tell the neighbor kids to get off your lawn??

 

[dilloduck]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

Consumerism screws up technology. They make useless changes in computer hardware and software to have different styles year after year.

There are major corporations that are still running COBOL programs from the 1960s. So why does software need to be upgraded every year and then they stop providing support for the old version?

It is not about making good use of computers it is about cash flow.

This stuff could easily be made more than 4 times as reliable as it is. With passive backplanes most desktop computers could have been made upgradeable by changing the circuit board with the CPU and memory. Why buy a case and power supply and most other components. Keep a computer 10 years or more instead of upgrading every 3 years.

The technology is screwed up for the money.

psik

no--I mean people relying on technology to do everything for them ensuring that they can't do shit for themselves.

 

[Valerie]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

Consumerism screws up technology. They make useless changes in computer hardware and software to have different styles year after year.

There are major corporations that are still running COBOL programs from the 1960s. So why does software need to be upgraded every year and then they stop providing support for the old version?

It is not about making good use of computers it is about cash flow.

This stuff could easily be made more than 4 times as reliable as it is. With passive backplanes most desktop computers could have been made upgradeable by changing the circuit board with the CPU and memory. Why buy a case and power supply and most other components. Keep a computer 10 years or more instead of upgrading every 3 years.

The technology is screwed up for the money.

psik

no--I mean people relying on technology to do everything for them ensuring that they can't do shit for themselves.

I usually prefer to use the internet as far as shopping goes...

 

[dilloduck]

Consumerism screws up technology. They make useless changes in computer hardware and software to have different styles year after year.

There are major corporations that are still running COBOL programs from the 1960s. So why does software need to be upgraded every year and then they stop providing support for the old version?

It is not about making good use of computers it is about cash flow.

This stuff could easily be made more than 4 times as reliable as it is. With passive backplanes most desktop computers could have been made upgradeable by changing the circuit board with the CPU and memory. Why buy a case and power supply and most other components. Keep a computer 10 years or more instead of upgrading every 3 years.

The technology is screwed up for the money.

psik

no--I mean people relying on technology to do everything for them ensuring that they can't do shit for themselves.

I usually prefer to use the internet as far as shopping goes...

oh get your ass of the couch and walk the mall, dammit.

 

[Valerie]

no--I mean people relying on technology to do everything for them ensuring that they can't do shit for themselves.

I usually prefer to use the internet as far as shopping goes...

oh get your ass of the couch and walk the mall, dammit.

I prefer to walk on trails in the woods!

 

[waltky]

Could this replace the binary system? I once had an idea of using different electrical frequencies to send data...

Laser puts record data rate through fibre
22 May 2011 - Researchers have set a new record for the rate of data transfer using a single laser: 26 terabits per second.

At those speeds, the entire Library of Congress collections could be sent down an optical fibre in 10 seconds. The trick is to use what is known as a "fast Fourier transform" to unpick more than 300 separate colours of light in a laser beam, each encoded with its own string of information. The technique is described in the journal Nature Photonics. The push for higher data rates in light-based telecommunications technologies has seen a number of significant leaps in recent years.

While the earliest optical fibre technologies encoded a string of data as "wiggles" within a single colour of light sent down a fibre, newer approaches have used a number of tricks to increase data rates. Among them is what is known as "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing", which uses a number of lasers to encode different strings of data on different colours of light, all sent through the fibre together. At the receiving end, another set of laser oscillators can be used to pick up these light signals, reversing the process.

Check the pulse

While the total data rate possible using such schemes is limited only by the number of lasers available, there are costs, says Wolfgang Freude, a co-author of the current paper from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany. "Already a 100 terabits per second experiment has been demonstrated," he told BBC News. "The problem was they didn't have just one laser, they had something like 370 lasers, which is an incredibly expensive thing. If you can imagine 370 lasers, they fill racks and consume several kilowatts of power." Professor Freude and his colleagues have instead worked out how to create comparable data rates using just one laser with exceedingly short pulses.

Within these pulses are a number of discrete colours of light in what is known as a "frequency comb". When these pulses are sent into an optical fibre, the different colours can add or subtract, mixing together and creating about 325 different colours in total, each of which can be encoded with its own data stream. Last year, Professor Freude and his collaborators first demonstrated how to use a smaller number of these colours to transmit over 10 terabits per second. At the receiving end, traditional methods to separate the different colours will not work. In the current experiment, the team sent their signals down 50km of optical fibre and then implemented what is known as an optical fast Fourier transform to unpick the data streams.

Colours everywhere

 

[JBeukema]

biggest problem----people think they know how to use it and they think it's reliable.

Who cares if it's bright, shiny, new, cutting edge, and does groovy stuff?

"It's a can opener, it's an asphalt spreader - it's 67 tools in one!"

none of which works as well as talking to each other directly.

What? Sorry, i can't hear you. What port are you listening on? Are we using the same encryption algorithm and file format?


What? I can't hear you.


I think you're a mac... I just installed Ubuntu. Yea, it's more compatible with my ocular implants, thought I can't find drivers for my spleen. Don't think I need that anyway, though. The kidney drivers are kinda iffy, so I can't run Wine, but everything I use is available in a .deb anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

The more tech the better. Gives me OPTIONS. Remember, you don’t have to actually use it if it is not useful.

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone else have it. ?

High tech really needs to go.

If it doesn't serve a useful purpose and make my life easier rather than more complicated, I'll avoid it.

Oh, the irony.

You both have a computer and post on message boards.

Yes, I however only use about 120 min a month on my phone and do almost no texting at all.

I never owned a palm pilot or such device although I worked in a data/programming center for the last 15 years.
Much of our current tech is only needed for a very minor percentage of the population the rest are used by the tech not the other way around.

 

[uscitizen]

The more tech the better. Gives me OPTIONS. Remember, you don’t have to actually use it if it is not useful.

No but you pay for it.

Try buying just a basic cell phone that will not text or browse the web,etc.
We all also pay for the data capabilities in our wireless network whether we use them or not.

 

[FA_Q2]

The more tech the better. Gives me OPTIONS. Remember, you don’t have to actually use it if it is not useful.

No but you pay for it.

Try buying just a basic cell phone that will not text or browse the web,etc.
We all also pay for the data capabilities in our wireless network whether we use them or not.

That’s easy. I can get one of those tomorrow for free or buy the basic trakphone. You don’t need to pay for it most of the time. You might if you want a pager but hey, if you did not then that just means the rest of us are paying to keep old, inefficient systems running when there is better out there.