It’s time to start moving beyond to-do lists, and start with some done lists.
1 Like
That phrase is actually ancient. The desktop wasn’t threatened when the phrase was coined, the only things out there was desktop and notebook and notebook hardware lagged pretty far behind desktop.
Pretty much the conversation between me and @shaddack like with “video phone”. In this case some smart scientist has to come up with a way to fool the eyes that doesn’t require goggles.
1 Like
Also, what’s wrong with goggles? At least in the case of augmented reality, a bigger thing than VR itself I hope, they are pretty much unavoidable.
1 Like
When it reaches the point of built into a gameboy or a phone, yeah sure, thats common acceptance, where it becomes invisible (again like video phone earlier) but as long as it requires goggles I think theres a serious barrier to common acceptance.
Phone/gameboy, i.e. something you have in your pocket/purse/backpack and don’t feel awkward using in public but I simply can’t imagine goggles ever becoming accepted for public use. Goggles will remain niche usage in my thinking, games and specific applications.
1 Like
Accepted by whom? The user, or the “public” around? The former matters, the latter can go stuff themselves.
1 Like
Most people don’t see things that way
And? Most people have zero vision, if it was on them we’re still in treetops and arguing about bananas.
Edit: The “public approval” has exactly zero value. They can like something, or dislike something, and the effect is the same. Screw them as they deserve. They are hindering adoption of tech left and right, time to not let them dictate and just steer it by force.
The interesting trend is sharing free software and networking that helps liberate communities from corporate hegemony.
More maker movement, Wozniak, Felsenstein and Homebrew Computer Club; less (much less) Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius tech IPO corporate booster.
2 Likes
While I can respect your view here, I think you’ve gone off course. Without the general public buying things, the whole question of acceptance makes no sense at all. A handful of enthusiasts who don’t care what others think does not a market make.
Also your same argument about “screw them as they deserve” could be used for all sorts of tech that you would find quite distasteful, TSA body scanners, biometric IDs where there is no actual need for such, surveillance technologies, etc. etc. etc.
1 Like
Are you trying to summon @Cowicide or @Mindysan33 with this term?[quote=“hello_friends, post:48, topic:71325”]
less (much less) Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius
[/quote]
Hey now! Aint nothin wrong with Acme Corp anvils, rockets and slingshots!
1 Like
Mass market, perhaps. However, with the proliferation of desktop manufacturing, of cheap small-scale board production, the size of the market needed to sustain a production is shrinking significantly. We don’t need the plebes that much today and we will need them even less tomorrow.
And at-home chemistry, cooking whatever chemicals we please, machining whatever we please, biopunk… We are already getting the bad, so we have to take the good too.
2 Likes
I think you are overestimating the depth of the enthusiasts of those things.
You may like to remember how much of current technology originated in small labs and one-or-two men shops in garages. There are things that cannot be made that way - high integration chips, for example. But you can have a plethora of things and outsource the rest, now you can even crowdsource the money if the stars are right and the cause is attractive enough - see the glowing plants or the CRISPR kit that reached their goal in very short time. There are technologies that are potentially scalable to this; if nanoprinting of functional inks works, low-integration chips made of organic transistors can be potentially homemade-able. And various kinds of sensor arrays. The key here is to get an “autocatalytic” ecosystem of tools and enabling technologies that will feed itself…
We do need each other. We need to imagine a world that cares for and shares with strangers.
3 Likes
To a degree. Want some tech I have? Have it, here’s the docs. But if you disapprove of something I have or want? Then, well, tough luck.
1 Like
OK but I don’t see how that translates to Jane Smith/Suzuki Hanako/etc. being willing to pull a VR rig out of her purse in public.
I don’t know these names? Are they celebrities, or placeholders for Just Somebody?
edit: I think it boils down to “I value your eventual disapproval less than I value the benefit of the technology in question”. It will pass. It was the same with cellphones, with bluetooth headsets, with many other things. The plebes will get used to it over time. You just have to ignore them for long enough.
I think we agree. The notion of “something” is also limited by degree, right?
Placeholder names for “the common woman”.
No matter how elite you think you are, to someone else you too are a plebe. I don’t say that as a personal insult, but in that there is always someone smarter or in a position of greater power. See also what I said before about surveillance technology, etc.
Personally I can’t go through life looking at “the masses” as plebes at all.
4 Likes
I am aware of that. And cannot do much about it, except perhaps think up technological countermeasures.
If you’d spend as much time alone between other people as I did, with nothing to bond over in common, you perhaps would too. Screw them.
1 Like
