[sdiy] Real cause of DIY death

[Ian Fritz]

At 06:16 PM 7/19/05, Richard Wentk wrote:
>At 00:52 20/07/2005, Ian Fritz wrote:
>>At 10:59 AM 7/18/05, Richard Wentk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's really missing is new ideas. There have been very, very few 
>>>really new ideas in technology over the last couple of decades now.
>>
>>Oh no, that's not right!  There are tremendously exciting advances going 
>>on right now, in areas such as biotech
>
>Yep.
>
>>, nanotech, molecular mechanics, quantum transistors, quantum computing, 
>>molecular electronics, etc.
>
>Maybe. Quantum computing definitely, if anyone can get it to work. The 
>rest - perhaps, if they turn out to have new applications.
>
>But that's really the point. It's about paradigms, not implementations. It 
>doesn't matter if your display is made of glass and CRT-shaped or if it's 
>a thin slice of plastic, when the underlying metaphor is still 'this is a 
>display.'
>
>What made (e.g.) the Internet different is that it was a new metaphor - 
>based on the old Memex and Xanadu ideas, and given enough of a spin to be 
>practical. Building something out of quantum dots isn't inherently 
>interesting unless it comes with some new metaphors for how technology can 
>be used. And apart from biotech, which is in a kind of ethical limbo 
>because the *really* fun stuff is still too scary for most people to think 
>about seriously, nano and the rest are mostly still ways to do stuff we 
>can already do., but more quickly and easily, and less about ways to do 
>completely new stuff that hasn't been thought of yet.
>
>A concept like programmable material is closer to what I'm talking about. 
>There are people thinking about these things, but at the moment we seem to 
>be in an R&D hiatus where a lot of technology is really quite backward 
>looking, and the budgets and momentum for the next level don't quite seem 
>to be there yet.


The budget part is a big problem, again because of the expensive equipment 
needed to get down to the small scale.  Scientists now have to spend more 
than half their time searching for funding. That was the main reason I took 
an early retirement.


>Don't forget that it took a century to get from Boolean algebra to 
>wide-scale digital systems. Without the metaphor and concept of both the 
>algebra itself, and its application in the form of information theory to 
>make digital circuits *useful*, there would have been no foundation for 
>digital electronics.
>
>What worries me at the moment is that there don't seem to ideas of 
>equivalent subtlety waiting in the wings. Most new technologies seem to be 
>about implementation rather than revolutionary reconceptualisations. But 
>only the latter lead to the really big changes.

Your points are all true enough, but don't forget that no one had any idea 
beforehand what the effect of inexpensive computing on the world would 
be.  Guess I'm more optimistic than you.  Who knows what the next wave of 
technology will bring as far as applications and paradigms?

   Ian