Planned Obsolecence [Archive]

nanovapor

10th April 2008, 19:10

WE ARE SUBDIVIDED, ALIENATED, CONFORM OR BE CAST OUT !!

Cool quote: "We have sat quietly and suffered the violence of the system for too long. We are being attacked daily. Violence does not only exist in the army, the police and the prisons. It exists in the shoddy alienating culture pushed out by TV films and magazines, it exists in the ugly sterility of urban life. It exists in the daily exploitation of our Labour, which gives big Bosses the power to control our lives and run the system for their own ends"

And that quote is right indeed. Violence doesnt only exist in physical violence. but also in the ugly environment we live in. Most local governments only invest in the urban architecture and environments of rich people, but the lower classes environments are so alienating, so ugly, so depressing, that it alienates the indiviual, depresses citizens, depresses poor people. And a depressed society is the goal of the upper-ruling classes.

Tell me, i am not rich, i have to live in a middle-lower class neighborhood, and i have to walk every day for 50 minutes to 1 hour because i suffer from slow metabolism, low thyroid, and i cannot be indoors all day sitting at a damned computer, or damned TV, because then i would get fat, gain weight, and depressed, so walking for me is a necessity. but the sidewalks, and environment where I walk are so ugly that i feel alienated completely and with lack of life.

Here is a song by Rush (The rock band) which talks about capitalist alienation, predeterminism in most capitalist societies:

Subdivisions by RUSH

Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In between the bright lights
And the far unlit unknown

Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone

Nowhere is the dreamer
Or the misfit so alone

Subdivisions ---
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
Subdivisions ---
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
Any escape might help to smooth
The unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe
The restless dreams of youth

Drawn like moths we drift into the city
The timeless old attraction
Cruising for the action
Lit up like a firefly
Just to feel the living night

Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight

Somewhere out of a memory
Of lighted streets on quiet nights...

Are there any case studies which demonstrate the use of planned obsolescence?

Planned obsolescence is a strategy whereby firms will design their products in a way that makes the product non-functional or obsolete only a short time after purchase, thereby ensuring that there will always be demand for a firm's products. This has widely been criticized as one of the negative impacts of the capitalist system, because it has a negative impact on the environment and is also unfair for consumers. An example of this is the use of short-term warranties in the consumer electronics industry, such that if a product breaks, consumers are unable to get a free replacement or a repair, they are forced to buy a new copy of the same product. I want more examples though.

Mujer Libre

11th April 2008, 00:34

I think lightbulbs (the non-flurescent kind) are an example of planned obsolescence. The filaments are made so that they only last a certain number of hours, when in reality they could either last much longer, or last indefinitely.

Another thing that bothers me, on a tangent, is how technological items have cables and leads etc, but some companies insist on using their own special leads and add-ons so that you're forced to spend more money and buy their brand, and you're not able to connect the gadget to other gadgets.

Zurdito

11th April 2008, 01:01

Not sure about obsolence but I am sure they hold back a little bit of technology.

I'm pretty sure Pro-Evolution Soccer takes 5 steps forwqard, 4 back with each new game, leaving/reintroducing a small flaw which didn't exist before, whilst still making better games, but promising to iron out the flaws by next time. One will have poor goalkeeping and tackling but good crosses. The next will have great goalkeeping and tackling but poorer crosses. After that comes one with great goalkeeping, tackling and corsses, but poor throw-ins. You buy the next one for better thow-ins, but this time the offside rule is crap. ;)

As long as the technology exists to keep making better products you can always hold a bit back for next time, or even put little new flaws in each time which go against the grain of general improvement.

wallflower

11th April 2008, 01:32

Violence doesnt only exist in physical violence. but also in the ugly environment we live in. Most local governments only invest in the urban architecture and environments of rich people, but the lower classes environments are so alienating, so ugly, so depressing, that it alienates the indiviual, depresses citizens, depresses poor people. And a depressed society is the goal of the upper-ruling classes.

Props to you, nanovapor. I've found this board sorely lacking in the psychogeography department. No more fucking ugly buildings!! :thumbup:

ckaihatsu

11th April 2008, 04:28

There is no conspiracy but more of the players of the industry all having interest in pushing consumers to newer hardware to fuel consumption.

(Psy)

Now I'm a pretty cynical person, but I tend to disagree with the idea that advances in computer technology are the result of a conspiracy to scam consumers. From my understanding of it there are many more forces at work in the computer industry that at least contribute to the phenomenon of 6-month shelf lives.

(jammoe)

I'd like to make an analogy to the 'prairies-to-forests' dynamic here -- regardless of the mode of production, technology -- or tool-using -- has a way of marching forward. To escape routine and cliche we look for adventure and novelty -- if it means having to work a job, or working more hours, or -- through capitalism -- exploiting others, then many people will take that leap so that they have more new things to do. It might be a more sophisticated video game, or a more powerful car, or a faster computer.

In the realm of imperialist politics it could be a longer-range missile, or a stealthier jet, or better detection of the enemy's forces.... Regardless of the motives I just can't imagine this tool-using species suddenly disdaining tools, and stopping at developing better ones at that.

Consumers are milked, of course, by the incrementalism of marketing -- meanwhile the nation-state and large private forces will always have access to far-more-advanced technologies at any given moment.

A minor point here: From a consumer point of view it's not always *necessary* to keep up with the latest computer technology -- I would argue that we've recently plateaued in terms of consumer uses from personal computers -- after the now-standardized office suite (use OpenOffice, by the way -- it's a free, MS clone), and Internet stuff, what else would the average person need from a computer?

I do graphics stuff myself, and even that's plateaued -- the only times now when I might yearn for a little more processing power is after I've constructed a virtual 3-D scene and it becomes time to render it -- then the computer dedicates its processing cycles to crunching the math needed to render out, or "draw" the scene based on how it would look if actual light hit the objects. At worst I might have to go to sleep on it and see how it came out in the morning -- so pretty much any new hardware for the consumer at this point is overkill.

One could make a very good argument for capitalism having already sold us the rope we need to hang it with -- now that the Internet is pervasive it becomes very difficult for cultural goods to take on a hegemonic form in popular culture -- consumers have so many options that we can't be led by a Beatles-like mania anymore -- that's a good thing.

The only proviso to this is that the tech industry can rejuvenate itself with "killer apps" -- digital consumer products that are *so* "oh-wow" and "gimmie-gimmie" that a significant number of people turn into lemmings again -- but it's not always so easy. I think the '90s weren't so much about innovations, as they were about refinements, in consumer technologies. Now that we've provided the ears and eyes with commonly available, top-quality media, what's left? Better resolution video? More channels of sound? A bass-rumble add-on to the recliner in your living room?

Consumer tech developers would really have to think hard to come up with a paradigm shift at this point, especially given the constraints of the capitalistic nuclear family setup -- all they have left now is their "security" protection racket, and people are getting pretty sick and tired of the fear thing, too...!

I tend to think of the Internet as being communism for your brain -- perhaps the final hurdle is personal energy production, and then land and private property could finally become obsolete and meaningless...!

Chris

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

piet11111

11th April 2008, 05:54

foodstuffs i believe most food products could be kept edible for much longer then what we have today.

and pretty much every electrical appliance.
my parents got a hamburger grill for their wedding it was old and my mom wanted something new after say 14 years (guesstimate) she bought a new one and it lasted for a year or 3 before breaking and now we are back to using the old one. (its also much easier to clean)

Psy

11th April 2008, 16:14

I'd like to make an analogy to the 'prairies-to-forests' dynamic here -- regardless of the mode of production, technology -- or tool-using -- has a way of marching forward. To escape routine and cliche we look for adventure and novelty -- if it means having to work a job, or working more hours, or -- through capitalism -- exploiting others, then many people will take that leap so that they have more new things to do. It might be a more sophisticated video game, or a more powerful car, or a faster computer.

In the realm of imperialist politics it could be a longer-range missile, or a stealthier jet, or better detection of the enemy's forces.... Regardless of the motives I just can't imagine this tool-using species suddenly disdaining tools, and stopping at developing better ones at that.

Consumers are milked, of course, by the incrementalism of marketing -- meanwhile the nation-state and large private forces will always have access to far-more-advanced technologies at any given moment.

A minor point here: From a consumer point of view it's not always *necessary* to keep up with the latest computer technology -- I would argue that we've recently plateaued in terms of consumer uses from personal computers -- after the now-standardized office suite (use OpenOffice, by the way -- it's a free, MS clone), and Internet stuff, what else would the average person need from a computer?

I do graphics stuff myself, and even that's plateaued -- the only times now when I might yearn for a little more processing power is after I've constructed a virtual 3-D scene and it becomes time to render it -- then the computer dedicates its processing cycles to crunching the math needed to render out, or "draw" the scene based on how it would look if actual light hit the objects. At worst I might have to go to sleep on it and see how it came out in the morning -- so pretty much any new hardware for the consumer at this point is overkill.

One could make a very good argument for capitalism having already sold us the rope we need to hang it with -- now that the Internet is pervasive it becomes very difficult for cultural goods to take on a hegemonic form in popular culture -- consumers have so many options that we can't be led by a Beatles-like mania anymore -- that's a good thing.

The only proviso to this is that the tech industry can rejuvenate itself with "killer apps" -- digital consumer products that are *so* "oh-wow" and "gimmie-gimmie" that a significant number of people turn into lemmings again -- but it's not always so easy. I think the '90s weren't so much about innovations, as they were about refinements, in consumer technologies. Now that we've provided the ears and eyes with commonly available, top-quality media, what's left? Better resolution video? More channels of sound? A bass-rumble add-on to the recliner in your living room?

Consumer tech developers would really have to think hard to come up with a paradigm shift at this point, especially given the constraints of the capitalistic nuclear family setup -- all they have left now is their "security" protection racket, and people are getting pretty sick and tired of the fear thing, too...!

I tend to think of the Internet as being communism for your brain -- perhaps the final hurdle is personal energy production, and then land and private property could finally become obsolete and meaningless...!

Chris

That won't stop the capitalists from spreading propaganda that consumers need to replace their older computers for newer more powerful systems. Sony is going to the extreme with their PS3, telling gamers they need more advanced hardware then most computers users currently have just to play games. The PS3 is so advanced they actually make a passable super computer when in large Beowulf clusters.

nanovapor

11th April 2008, 17:08

hahaha, true, it must be a little bit boring to live in New York indeed with so many alienating cement buildings

nanovapor

Props to you, nanovapor. I've found this board sorely lacking in the psychogeography department. No more fucking ugly buildings!! :thumbup:

jake williams

11th April 2008, 17:19

That won't stop the capitalists from spreading propaganda that consumers need to replace their older computers for newer more powerful systems. Sony is going to the extreme with their PS3, telling gamers they need more advanced hardware then most computers users currently have just to play games. The PS3 is so advanced they actually make a passable super computer when in large Beowulf clusters.
There's certainly capitalist propaganda - both "conventional" and just plain advertising - but again, I'd like to hear from anyone who's ever been a computer programmer or engineer, or even a computer scientist or mathematician. The industry and general community around computers is a bit more complex than "capitalists are making things up to exploit us". And we shouldn't forget that.

ckaihatsu

11th April 2008, 17:48

That won't stop the capitalists from spreading propaganda that consumers need to replace their older computers for newer more powerful systems. Sony is going to the extreme with their PS3, telling gamers they need more advanced hardware then most computers users currently have just to play games. The PS3 is so advanced they actually make a passable super computer when in large Beowulf clusters.

Well, technically speaking, it's not propaganda if it's *true* -- it would be advertising.

As consumers we have the free will to decide to buy something or not buy something -- I would say that the PS3 (or whatever) might be a 'killer app' if enough people went apeshit about it....

jake williams

11th April 2008, 19:26

Well, technically speaking, it's not propaganda if it's *true* -- it would be advertising.
- First off, no. The term "Propaganda" gives no information as to the truth value of it
- Advertising is propaganda. Not only does it look almost identical to old-style Nazi and even "Communist" propaganda (not in terms of content, of course, though sometimes there are analogues), but in terms of style and mechanism and intent - propaganda is used to get lots of people to think things they don't already think, or even disagree with. This also doesn't make a value judgment, it's just that it's generally used to mislead, which leads me to
- Advertising itself is deceptive and misleading, if not explicitly false (obviously - everyone knows this).

As consumers we have the free will to decide to buy something or not buy something
Sorta-kinda. I can promise you no one will force you to buy Pepsi if what you really want is Coke.

Panda Tse Tung

11th April 2008, 22:23

washing machines, anybody?

Edit: just call a company that handles washing machines and say you have a 25 year old washing machine that needs a small check-up, see how they react. 'What? Their only made to last 5 these days, your lucky!'

ckaihatsu

12th April 2008, 02:30

- First off, no. The term "Propaganda" gives no information as to the truth value of it
- Advertising is propaganda. Not only does it look almost identical to old-style Nazi and even "Communist" propaganda (not in terms of content, of course, though sometimes there are analogues), but in terms of style and mechanism and intent - propaganda is used to get lots of people to think things they don't already think, or even disagree with. This also doesn't make a value judgment, it's just that it's generally used to mislead, which leads me to
- Advertising itself is deceptive and misleading, if not explicitly false (obviously - everyone knows this).

I guess I think of advertising as pertaining to the private sector, whereas propaganda is about public policy, and so usually emanates from the government (public sector), or from political parties.

Both advertising and propaganda will relate to real things, but will also inject partisan leanings. Maybe we can agree that they both even out to about half substance, half style -- the style part is to make them more enticing than a 100% substance counterpart would be.

A lot of pharmaceutical ads, for instance, are now having to have the voiceover go through a laundry list of possible side effects, which obviously sucks from a style point of view, but pushes the advertising message closer to full disclosure.

A purely style-oriented approach probably wouldn't want to mention the product at all -- too distracting -- and would rather concentrate on wowing people and winning mindshare.

Both advertising and propaganda can be considered value-free, in general -- what counts is what the particular product, service, or policy is. Here in Chicago (or in any city, I'd imagine) the public transit system has print advertisements that tout the rail service over getting stuck in rush-hour (car) traffic -- does a taxpayer-funded rail system really *need* to print advertisements? -- it's going to get funded regardless -- so the ad campaign could be called propaganda, even though it's relatively benign.

Sorta-kinda. I can promise you no one will force you to buy Pepsi if what you really want is Coke.

I hear ya that ultimately the consumer has to be smart-enough and well-informed-enough to be responsible for the final decision -- it's buyer-beware. At the same time the markets severely constrict our range of options, and advertising nudges us in certain directions -- so there's top-down in addition to bottom-up when it comes to consumption.

If consumption was truly democratic we'd see centralized planning that allowed for as much variation as possible, in precise, as-needed quantities, according to specific feedback from consumers. Especially now with today's customizable automation there's no reason why we couldn't see dial-and-deliver-a-recipe become as commonplace as change-the-channel for TV, or print-my-custom-business-card-design-5000-times for digital printing.... I suppose it comes back to the money thing -- under markets you can have anything you can think of, if you have the money for it -- but why not everyone, ultimately?!

Psy

16th April 2008, 16:30

There's certainly capitalist propaganda - both "conventional" and just plain advertising - but again, I'd like to hear from anyone who's ever been a computer programmer or engineer, or even a computer scientist or mathematician. The industry and general community around computers is a bit more complex than "capitalists are making things up to exploit us". And we shouldn't forget that.

Yet the PS3 is not really a computer and simply a game machine. Lets look at the Neo-Geo MVS (the arcade board) it lasted around 10 years because the arcade industry was stagnant (and still is) yet the Neo-Geo MVS was able to be a decent arcade platform for all those years.

#FF0000

16th April 2008, 17:14

A example would be advances in hardware is used to make older hardware obsolete. Yes the new generation of hardware in more powerful, yet this results in support for older hardware drying up, so users get newer hardware just to keep up where software devlopment goes.

In the early days of computers, support for the Apple 2 and C64 lasted about 10 years. Now running a 10 year old computer is unthinkable as support for older computers are dropped much quicker even though computer power is becoming more and more over kill for the average user.

That has nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything to do with Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law). To save people the trip to wiki for just a brief overview, Moore's Law describes how the number of transistors that can be easily replaced by an intregrated circuit grows exponentially approx. every two years.

Basically: Computer chips and circuits and bits like that are all getting more and more and more powerful at a dizzying speed.

I'd chalk this up more to that than planned obsolescence.

Psy

16th April 2008, 17:43

That has nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything to do with Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law). To save people the trip to wiki for just a brief overview, Moore's Law describes how the number of transistors that can be easily replaced by an intregrated circuit grows exponentially approx. every two years.

Basically: Computer chips and circuits and bits like that are all getting more and more and more powerful at a dizzying speed.

I'd chalk this up more to that than planned obsolescence.
By market forces drives the new hardware. Like I just said the Neo-Geo MVS arcade board lasted about 10 years due to a stagnating arcade industry thus is was what arcade game developers had to work with, as arcades couldn't afford that much new hardware and that went to the big arcade companies like Capcom and Sega yet due to the low cost of the Neo-Geo MVS it was deployed far outside arcades and there are still a few new arcade titles being released for the Neo-Geo MVS even though the hardware is over a decade old now.

#FF0000

16th April 2008, 20:43

-snip-

Of course market forces drive the new hardware. Moore's Law is a self-fulfilling prophesy in that the industry is going to make an effort to keep with it.

However, my point is that computer chips are not like cars and certain consumer electronics and home appliances in that top-of-the-line computer chips are indeed top-of-the-line. It's simply the best thing going in terms of power. More often than not, when one replaces an old, once-top-of-the-line-and-now-obsolete computer with a new top-of-the-line computer.

Meanwhile, cars and appliances today last a fraction of the time that they could if only they were produced differently, and once a car or appliance breaks down, it is replaced with something only slightly different with a new color scheme.

But I think there is some truth in what you're saying. I guess we could have a mind-blowingly powerful computer if someone just built one huge one with all the latest parts. It's just not economically feasible.

Psy

16th April 2008, 21:23

Of course market forces drive the new hardware. Moore's Law is a self-fulfilling prophesy in that the industry is going to make an effort to keep with it.

However, my point is that computer chips are not like cars and certain consumer electronics and home appliances in that top-of-the-line computer chips are indeed top-of-the-line. It's simply the best thing going in terms of power. More often than not, when one replaces an old, once-top-of-the-line-and-now-obsolete computer with a new top-of-the-line computer.

Meanwhile, cars and appliances today last a fraction of the time that they could if only they were produced differently, and once a car or appliance breaks down, it is replaced with something only slightly different with a new color scheme.

But I think there is some truth in what you're saying. I guess we could have a mind-blowingly powerful computer if someone just built one huge one with all the latest parts. It's just not economically feasible.
That or like SNK did, turn to the programmers and tell them to push the hardware more. This is why the Neo-Geo MVS did so well, SNK could keep turning to its programmers and tell them to squeezes even more performance out of the same hardware as SNK couldn't sell newer arcade boards, as the arcades were dying and arcade owners didn't want to invest in new hardware unless you were talking about a block buster arcade game that could pull the customers, now even Sega can't really get arcade owners to invest in the latest arcade boards anymore.

Sendo

17th April 2008, 04:35

Hello!
how about IPODS??

I loved when I finally cracked and got an ipod shuffle at $100 the thing was having problems, they stopped giving firmware for it and then BAM! the ipod shuffle 2 with a whle gig for only $80 comes out and it supports new firmware or rather the new firmware supports it. Thanks for letting me know about that asswipes. How many obsolete ipod doodads are in dumps right now?

New rule: never buy sony electronics, american cars.......and now apple.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

17th April 2008, 06:22

Most dramatically, terminator seeds. The seed's second generation is sterile, so the farmer has to keep buying seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_seed

ckaihatsu

18th April 2008, 08:01

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36946/113/
http://digg.com

Terahertz computing may not be dead after all

Trendwatch

By Wolfgang Gruener

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:08

Salt Lake City (UT) – The Gigahertz race was probably one of the most ill-fated ideas in the microprocessor industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Intel was almost brought down to its knees by the enormous power consumption and heat dissipation of 3+ GHz speeds in circuits of the time, eventually hitting a wall at 4 GHz. The Gigahertz race has now become a multi-core race, but scientists have ideas to ramp up the clock speed at a faster pace again: Terahertz computers may be within reach – if data is carried over optical instead of electrical circuits.

Researchers at the University of Utah have not given up on the idea of dazzling clock speeds in processors, reminding us of landmark comments made by Intel’s Pat Gelsinger back in 2001: Back then, the executive said that 30 to 40 GHz may be reached by 2010, requiring nuclear power plant-like energy systems within PCs. Ajay Nahata, a University of Utah professor of electrical and computer engine, believes that clock speeds, which are stalling in the range of 3 to 4 GHz today, could grow at a faster pace again within the next years, if systems design will take advantage of optical technologies. Within ten years, Nahata said, superfast far-infrared computers could become commercially available.

Nahata’s statement is based on initial research that investigated circuits that that run on far-infrared light instead of electricity. Apparently the scientist and his team were able to create the equivalent of wires that carried and bent this form of light (also known as terahertz radiation), which is believed to be the last unexploited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

A report that will be published April 18 in the online journal Optics Express, will provide further details on Nahata’s results and a test setup that stainless steel foil sheets with patterns of perforations that successfully served as wire-like waveguides to transmit, bend, split or combine terahertz radiation. The long-term goal of the research is to develop capabilities to create circuits that run faster than modern-day electronic circuits “so we can have faster computers and faster data transfer via the Internet,” according to the scientist.

The setup included pieces of stainless steel foil measuring 4” x 1” in area size and 625 microns thickness - or 6.25 times the thickness of a human hair. The scientists perforated the metal with rectangular holes, each measuring 500 microns by 50 microns. The rectangular holes were arranged side by side in three different patterns to form “wires” for terahertz radiation – one of which “successfully” carried terahertz radiation in a straight line, while two changed the direction the terahertz radiation was moving through splitting or coupling.

The project did not yet yield a 1 THz speed, but was in the range of what is defined as terahertz radiation – 0.1 THz to 10 THz. The scientists said they chose to run a frequency “they could generate and measure”: About 0.3 THz (300 GHz).

“Electronic circuits today work at gigahertz frequencies – billions of cycles per second,” Nahata stated. “In this study, we’ve demonstrated the first step toward making circuits that use terahertz radiation and ultimately might work at terahertz speeds or a thousand times faster than today’s gigahertz-speed computers.”

While research on terahertz waveguides have existed for about a decade, Nahata claims that his team was able to show “how to make these waveguides on a flat surface so that you can make circuits just like electronic circuits on silicon chips.”

“All we’ve done is made the wires” for terahertz circuits, Nahata says. “Now the issue is how do we make devices [such as switches, transistors and modulators] at terahertz frequencies"”

Psy

18th April 2008, 15:33

What would the average user want with a terahertz computer? And we went through the problem of CPUs speed during the mainframe days, then all of a sudden engineers got the brilliant idea of decentralizing processing which is how modern industrial computers work today. Decentralizing processing for industry means instead of replacing a massive centralized mainframe you add processing units to add processing power to the cluster.

Multicore processors is basically taking the ideas learned in large scale computers and deploying them in personal computers, so isn't the idea of terahertz computing a step in the wrong direction?

ckaihatsu

21st April 2008, 01:22

What would the average user want with a terahertz computer?

Well, this goes back to my 'killer app' theory -- who knows what people might ever want to do with processing power in their homes?

My own roots in using computer technology go back to the Atari 800 8-bit computer and the 2600 gaming system. At the time I had no conception -- mostly due to the primitive quality of computers then -- that they would be able to eventually do page layout / desktop publishing.

Nowadays software for that purpose is both open-source / freeware *and* cross-platform. Same for office applications, photo / video / audio editing, and 3-D rendering and animation.

If the average user doesn't push their computer's power to the limit, then we have an issue of unused capacity more than anything else. Some users are gamers and they're more likely to max out the computer's abilities.

It's up to programmers and developers to figure out what those cycles can be used for -- as with any other resource either it's used well or it isn't.

I agree in general that there's plenty of unused capacity on people's desks and laps due to the advanced state of microchip technology -- this is arguably a political issue, in that if we were free from commodity production we would have a workers' government that would do a better job of harnessing computer computational power for society's more pressing problem-solving needs. This is similar to the 'solar-cells-left-in-the-sun' argument I was making about untapped resources, in another thread.

And we went through the problem of CPUs speed during the mainframe days, then all of a sudden engineers got the brilliant idea of decentralizing processing which is how modern industrial computers work today. Decentralizing processing for industry means instead of replacing a massive centralized mainframe you add processing units to add processing power to the cluster.

I'm not that knowledgeable about computers in industry, but from what I understand the greatest concern is about heat dissipation -- decentralizing the processors allows for better methods of channelling heat away, along with introducing greater flexibility for scaling up or scaling down the overall size and limits of the computing array.

Multicore processors is basically taking the ideas learned in large scale computers and deploying them in personal computers, so isn't the idea of terahertz computing a step in the wrong direction?

The cutting-edge of microchip technology is always kind of blurry, in terms of the information that the public has access to -- perennial concerns are always about heat dissipation and the width of the circuit pathways, but I often notice that these obstacles are conveniently overcome when it comes time to market the next generation of products.

The article talks about a paradigm shift in how computation is performed, and it's portrayed as bleeding-edge. I've also read stuff about quantum computing, which sounds promising as well. My question would be about the innate limits of the microchip, which I'd have to update my knowledge about.

Again, there will never be an upper-limit to the continual development of computational power -- as long as people can think of ways to harness it, then there will be a demand, and, usually, markets for it.

Deploying processing power, at any level from micro to macro, is all about topology, or the logistics of arranging it over flat or multi-dimensional space.

This then leads directly into the political question of whether human need is being sufficiently supplied by available computational power. Obviously it isn't -- the One Laptop Per Child program has been a notable project to remedy this deficiency, but I'm sure it's not enough.

In a world liberated from private property and the profit motive I'm sure we would see a much more rational approach to the issue of distribution of processing power -- perhaps with mainframe-type computers for each neighborhood, or population cluster, and stripped-down laptops or tablets (thin clients) for individuals.

All processing would be on a grid basis, with cycles allocated from arbitrary arrays of mainframes that are relatively close to each other.

At that point videoconferencing, for example, would be a snap -- maybe in a true 'Star Trek' manner -- and perhaps applications would tend in that direction of virtualized presences so that global communication would be as intuitive and real-world as looking into (and talking with) a large mirror....

Your immediate surroundings could all be customized, including virtual architecture, and as easily swappable as wallpapers for cellphones are now...!

Plenty of fields of scientific endeavor would benefit as well....

Chris

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Psy

25th April 2008, 18:45

It's up to programmers and developers to figure out what those cycles can be used for -- as with any other resource either it's used well or it isn't.

I agree in general that there's plenty of unused capacity on people's desks and laps due to the advanced state of microchip technology -- this is arguably a political issue, in that if we were free from commodity production we would have a workers' government that would do a better job of harnessing computer computational power for society's more pressing problem-solving needs. This is similar to the 'solar-cells-left-in-the-sun' argument I was making about untapped resources, in another thread.

I was thinking more of the effort that goes into replacing hardware. Like I said SNK's Neo-Geo arcade board was a major workhorse in arcade for over a decade due to the arcade industry being stagnant thus getting programmers (labor) to squeeze more performance out of the hardware was the only way SNK could stay profitable as new hardware costs money. Even when arcades were hot, arcade companies expected their programmers to push the hardware as they were paying for the hardware, meaning if their programmers could use older arcade technology while still making it look like it is modern arcade technology the arcade company just saved a shit load of money.

Meanwhile the home computer industry is set up differently, those writing the software are in no way connected to those making the hardware. Even the home game console industry is shifting to this model going from where the system manufacture made the bulk of their profits from their own titles on the system to were they make most of their profits from licensing 3rd parties.

Now I'm not saying it is better to have programmers more exploited then electronic manufactures, yet them working together would probably mean longer life cycles of hardware as programmers expand the life of hardware through more efficient code, simply because less resources would be needed for programmers to make software faster then to build faster hardware.

I'm not that knowledgeable about computers in industry, but from what I understand the greatest concern is about heat dissipation -- decentralizing the processors allows for better methods of channelling heat away, along with introducing greater flexibility for scaling up or scaling down the overall size and limits of the computing array.
Heat dissipation was a major concern but as the Internet experienced rapid growth in the late 90's, clusters was the only practical solution, as major sites simply bought off the shelf computers and slapped them into the cluster as their traffic grew.

The cutting-edge of microchip technology is always kind of blurry, in terms of the information that the public has access to -- perennial concerns are always about heat dissipation and the width of the circuit pathways, but I often notice that these obstacles are conveniently overcome when it comes time to market the next generation of products.
Not aways, there has been a number of stalls in the increase of clock speed and the only reason Intel released dual core CPUs is they were unable to practically increase the clock speed. Also you don't need to increase the clock rate to increase processing power.

Deploying processing power, at any level from micro to macro, is all about topology, or the logistics of arranging it over flat or multi-dimensional space.

This then leads directly into the political question of whether human need is being sufficiently supplied by available computational power. Obviously it isn't -- the One Laptop Per Child program has been a notable project to remedy this deficiency, but I'm sure it's not enough.
The One Laptop Per Child is just a stupid project. You still need a network backbone and lets not forget the need to service them. Mostly it is solving the problem of creating a new market more then giving computers to underdeveloped nations. A better solution would be thin-clients in public places thus fewer would needed and they would be easier to maintain. Thin-clients would also mean they could simply use obsolete computers from the developed world for the terminals with the only modern computers being the servers.

Yes I know it centralizes processing but in the underdeveloped nations I highly doubt the end users would have that much processing demand.

ckaihatsu

26th April 2008, 00:06

I was thinking more of the effort that goes into replacing hardware. Like I said SNK's Neo-Geo arcade board was a major workhorse in arcade for over a decade due to the arcade industry being stagnant thus getting programmers (labor) to squeeze more performance out of the hardware was the only way SNK could stay profitable as new hardware costs money. Even when arcades were hot, arcade companies expected their programmers to push the hardware as they were paying for the hardware, meaning if their programmers could use older arcade technology while still making it look like it is modern arcade technology the arcade company just saved a shit load of money.

Meanwhile the home computer industry is set up differently, those writing the software are in no way connected to those making the hardware. Even the home game console industry is shifting to this model going from where the system manufacture made the bulk of their profits from their own titles on the system to were they make most of their profits from licensing 3rd parties.

Now I'm not saying it is better to have programmers more exploited then electronic manufactures, yet them working together would probably mean longer life cycles of hardware as programmers expand the life of hardware through more efficient code, simply because less resources would be needed for programmers to make software faster then to build faster hardware.

Yeah, this is a good point -- capitalism disjoints layers of workers from each other, so that everyone has to play 'catch-up' to another sector which is related to their own job's duties but is financially (and therefore operationally) a separate entity. You're right, programmers should be working integrally with hardware manufacturers, so that the cycles of hardware-software development are more closely coordinated.

I recall that in the early days programming was more about finesse because of the highly restricted hardware capacities -- it also made the culture that much more geeky (specialized knowledge) because only those who *wanted* to wrap their heads around writing in a very low-level language like Assembly could get stuff done using computers.

I heard that in the '90s, as computer hardware became more powerful, coding became much looser and sloppier, because it could be -- I've seen my share of commercial bloatware, which now isn't even that much of a problem -- unless there are actual bugs -- because the hardware has gotten *even more* powerful and roomy. I think we're also seeing the rise of more non-proprietary, mainstream apps written in UNIX / Linux, and now Java, too. It's really becoming the golden age for the non-techie user -- computer use is now mainstream, relatively inexpensive and not geeky at all -- pretty amazing from a cultural point of view.

The One Laptop Per Child is just a stupid project. You still need a network backbone and lets not forget the need to service them. Mostly it is solving the problem of creating a new market more then giving computers to underdeveloped nations. A better solution would be thin-clients in public places thus fewer would needed and they would be easier to maintain. Thin-clients would also mean they could simply use obsolete computers from the developed world for the terminals with the only modern computers being the servers.

Yes I know it centralizes processing but in the underdeveloped nations I highly doubt the end users would have that much processing demand.

Well, I guess I'd have to keep up with it and see how well it gets deployed. The concept isn't a bad idea, and the OLPC computers are not that far from being thin clients anyway -- we could call them 'medium-clients', maybe. As with any deployment the question is how well it's done -- yes, the users would need a connection to a network -- but then don't we all?

You *could* argue that it's just a gimmick to wedge open new markets, but this is *very* debatable -- a gray area. If the computers are as good over time as I've seen them initially (from videos posted by others), and they're provided to millions who would not otherwise be able to afford connectivity, then the result is the *opposite* of what you're suggesting -- it would be *displacing* markets due to abundance.

Yes, perhaps some will want to upgrade, and will find ways to procure money to participate in the markets for such, but we would need data to determine that for sure.

I detect a hint of condescension with your last statement -- how would users in underdeveloped areas be any different, in their technical requirements, than users anywhere else? As soon as someone wants to stream video from YouTube then the requirements have just gone up. Same for file sharing, or maybe editing video and audio (maybe downloaded from the net)....

Psy

26th April 2008, 00:25

Well, I guess I'd have to keep up with it and see how well it gets deployed. The concept isn't a bad idea, and the OLPC computers are not that far from being thin clients anyway -- we could call them 'medium-clients', maybe. As with any deployment the question is how well it's done -- yes, the users would need a connection to a network -- but then don't we all?

Laptops are designed to be portable, such portability is not very useful in a region that doesn't even have wide spread cover of electricity let alone telecommunications access points.

You *could* argue that it's just a gimmick to wedge open new markets, but this is *very* debatable -- a gray area. If the computers are as good over time as I've seen them initially (from videos posted by others), and they're provided to millions who would not otherwise be able to afford connectivity, then the result is the *opposite* of what you're suggesting -- it would be *displacing* markets due to abundance.

Remember the bourgeoisie act against their long term interest for their short term interest. All manufactures involved in OLPC care about is they will be able to profits in the near future for manufacturing them.

I detect a hint of condescension with your last statement -- how would users in underdeveloped areas be any different, in their technical requirements, than users anywhere else? As soon as someone wants to stream video from YouTube then the requirements have just gone up. Same for file sharing, or maybe editing video and audio (maybe downloaded from the net)....
Because they are capitalist non-industrial societies, thus don't even the leisure time we have.

ckaihatsu

26th April 2008, 03:21

Laptops are designed to be portable, such portability is not very useful in a region that doesn't even have wide spread cover of electricity let alone telecommunications access points.

This is a relatively minor point -- the computer's portability is separate from the availability of electricity.

One feature of the OPLC computer is that it includes a pull-string device so that the user can recharge the battery with their own muscle power. And my understanding is that the company does what it can to address connectivity issues on a village-by-village basis -- something involving a satellite dish for shared Internet access....

Remember the bourgeoisie act against their long term interest for their short term interest. All manufactures involved in OLPC care about is they will be able to profits in the near future for manufacturing them.

Well, my understanding, again, is that the OPLC is more philanthropic-oriented -- it's not profit-oriented, or if it is, then much less so than a normal company. I haven't checked back in on it recently so I don't have the latest information.

Because they are capitalist non-industrial societies, thus don't even the leisure time we have.

I won't belabor the point, but I still think that users all over the world will find that they will be able to make use of video-streaming capacity, if they have it. You're falsely correlating usage time with needs for increased technical capacity -- as though someone with more time to use a PC will also happen to do more technology-comprehensive things with it, while the sometime user will only stick to lower-level uses. All it takes is someone to receive a link in their email to a YouTube video, and right there, they'll need the capacity to stream video over a network connection.

Psy

26th April 2008, 04:32

This is a relatively minor point -- the computer's portability is separate from the availability of electricity.

One feature of the OPLC computer is that it includes a pull-string device so that the user can recharge the battery with their own muscle power. And my understanding is that the company does what it can to address connectivity issues on a village-by-village basis -- something involving a satellite dish for shared Internet access....

Satellite airtime is expensive, this is why telecommunication companies uses fiber whenever they can rather then satellites.

Well, my understanding, again, is that the OPLC is more philanthropic-oriented -- it's not profit-oriented, or if it is, then much less so than a normal company. I haven't checked back in on it recently so I don't have the latest information.

While OPLC is non-profit, the manufactures of the laptops are doing it for profit.

I won't belabor the point, but I still think that users all over the world will find that they will be able to make use of video-streaming capacity, if they have it. You're falsely correlating usage time with needs for increased technical capacity -- as though someone with more time to use a PC will also happen to do more technology-comprehensive things with it, while the sometime user will only stick to lower-level uses. All it takes is someone to receive a link in their email to a YouTube video, and right there, they'll need the capacity to stream video over a network connection.
You do know that that nations like Vietnam still use FideoNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet) as they have a working telephone system and FideoNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet) works as it only requires a telephone network as it is a character based (ANSI) network.

As for YouTube, Africa does not have industrialized societies thus they don't have the telecommunication infrastructure for that.