Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.
Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
So my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?
I'd venture to answer yes,
but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it
can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.
Very interesting question though.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PMAnother example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
Even when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum). I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.
Quote from: webny99 on May 31, 2018, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?
I'd venture to answer yes, but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.
Very interesting question though.
To be clear, I'm thinking mainly of systems still in regular use–you know, not like the telegraph or anything. :-)
But yes, older systems tend not to be invested in by companies: both cable TV and copper telephone systems have been largely superseded by internet-based delivery of both services. However, in the case of broadcast TV, it was intentionally upgraded in such a fashion that the technology worked less well, rather than merely being abandoned in place. The reason for this is doubtless what you describe, but it's interesting that the regression would be intentional.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.
Well, wait, which is it? User error (hit the wrong button and disconnected you by mistake) or user malfeasance (intentionally dropped the call for the reasons you mentioned)? User error would be an understandable result of technological advancement, as education about older systems is phased out. But user malfeasance would be a surprising new aspect to my question, and probably due to something separate from technology itself.
QuoteEven when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum). I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.
The reception is better when you get it, but the issue is that you get it less of the time. With old antennas, there was always
some signal, good or bad. But with modern ones, there's either a perfect signal or no signal. No middle ground.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 03:15:00 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 31, 2018, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?
I'd venture to answer yes, but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.
Very interesting question though.
To be clear, I'm thinking mainly of systems still in regular use–you know, not like the telegraph or anything. :-)
But yes, older systems tend not to be invested in by companies: both cable TV and copper telephone systems have been largely superseded by internet-based delivery of both services. However, in the case of broadcast TV, it was intentionally upgraded in such a fashion that the technology worked less well, rather than merely being abandoned in place. The reason for this is doubtless what you describe, but it's interesting that the regression would be intentional.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.
Well, wait, which is it? User error (hit the wrong button and disconnected you by mistake) or user malfeasance (intentionally dropped the call for the reasons you mentioned)? User error would be an understandable result of technological advancement, as education about older systems is phased out. But user malfeasance would be a surprising new aspect to my question, and probably due to something separate from technology itself.
QuoteEven when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum). I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.
The reception is better when you get it, but the issue is that you get it less of the time. With old antennas, there was always some signal, good or bad. But with modern ones, there's either a perfect signal or no signal. No middle ground.
(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.
(2) There is a middle ground - a glitchy, pixellated signal.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.
I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
The sad part is that I warned everyone this would happen, and they didn't listen. The FCC and the TV industry couldn't have possibly been stupid enough not to know it would happen, but they went ahead with it anyway.
The old way was so much better.
Also, I think records were better than CD's.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 31, 2018, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
The sad part is that I warned everyone this would happen, and they didn't listen. The FCC and the TV industry couldn't have possibly been stupid enough not to know it would happen, but they went ahead with it anyway.
The old way was so much better.
Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 31, 2018, 03:58:23 PM
Also, I think records were better than CD's.
2-speed manual transmission is all what a person would ever need!
I commute 2 hours a day and my only audio choice is radio. The reception these days does not seem as robust as it used to be when I was younger. I do not know if it is less robust antennas, or if it is interference from other wireless devices, or if it is just my imagination.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.
I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.
Any more, the only thing threatening a lawsuit will do is cause customer service to refuse to help and refer you to the legal department.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
(2) There is a middle ground - a glitchy, pixellated signal.
Fair enough, and an apt example. The middle ground of today's broadcast signal is much less functional than the middle ground of yesterday's. You can't even remotely follow a program with the glitchy, pixellated signal, but you could work through the static and fuzz, to a greater or lesser extent.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 03:48:11 PM
I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude.
And those things that huge call centers suffer from (altitude?), are they causes, or symptoms, of a larger principle or law that's observable in our society? Or at least, are they one example of several unrelated phenomena that, nevertheless, could be grouped under the umbrella of technological regression?
Quote from: bandit957 on May 31, 2018, 03:58:23 PM
Also, I think records were better than CD's.
Analog versions of most things seem to be of better quality than digital ones, because of sample rates/attenuation of data. To bring this very much back on topic, compare the best paper maps with the best available digitally-produced ones. More to the point, compare to the widespread
absence of any digital maps of comparable quality to paper ones.
But analog records are prone to scratches, and paper maps are liable to tear, crease or be stained. So, must there always be a trade-off between better information from the old methods, and better consistency/reliability of that information from the new ones? Is it impossible to have an unscratchable sound recording of analog quality? a digital map with the precision of a paper one?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 31, 2018, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.
I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.
Any more, the only thing threatening a lawsuit will do is cause customer service to refuse to help and refer you to the legal department.
THAT was a special case. Blood dripping on a floor (literally) makes a strong case for criminal negligence when paperwork issues hold up on providing medical help.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.
I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.
The less routine of a question, the more trouble I have finding someone who can answer it. Most likely it's a lack of training and a function of high turnover among CSRs, meaning you don't actually have someone who's tenured long enough to be able to answer it. Or it's because the CSR job has been outsourced to a country that doesn't emphasize flexibility or innovative thinking. Either way, to bring it back to the original question, technology will only make it worse, not better.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 04:09:24 PM
And those things that huge call centers suffer from (altitude?), are they causes, or symptoms, of a larger principle or law that's observable in our society? Or at least, are they one example of several unrelated phenomena that, nevertheless, could be grouped under the umbrella of technological regression?
My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 04:13:21 PM
The less routine of a question, the more trouble I have finding someone who can answer it. Most likely it's a lack of training and a function of high turnover among CSRs, meaning you don't actually have someone who's tenured long enough to be able to answer it. Or it's because the CSR job has been outsourced to a country that doesn't emphasize flexibility or innovative thinking. Either way, to bring it back to the original question, technology will only make it worse, not better.
I think we can leave aside those instances where employees simply can't (or won't) figure out how to resolve a problem, even if they intentionally hang up on me under the pretense of "transferring" the call to someone else. What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?
Or, if that isn't something you've observed personally, what about some other examples of regression that you've experienced? I just don't want us to get too sidetracked on the issue of terrible customer service, which is really a whole other topic and probably quite separate from the technology issue.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.
So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.
So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)
It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.
I am going to touch political issues a bit - not party vs party, but yet; and I would respect moderator's request not to continue. I will outline my answer though.
First world values human labor, especially in financial terms. It came to the point that it is too expensive for anyone - including those in US - to pay for US labor without second thought. And if it has to be - it is cheapest that can do the job...
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:00:40 PM
Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.
The old way was better for anyone who doesn't have cable.
Quote from: jon daly on May 31, 2018, 04:06:50 PM
I commute 2 hours a day and my only audio choice is radio. The reception these days does not seem as robust as it used to be when I was younger. I do not know if it is less robust antennas, or if it is interference from other wireless devices, or if it is just my imagination.
Two reasons: 1) Radios aren't as good as they used to be. 2) The FCC has made the dial too crowded.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 31, 2018, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:00:40 PM
Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.
The old way was better for anyone who doesn't have cable.
Which is already a minority - 99 out of 126 million households in US have paid TV (cable, satellite.. ), and number of internet-only households grows..
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:00:40 PM
Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.
Not just the edge of reception. If you put my address into a system like TVFool, it says I have strong signal on all the major channels. In practice, however, that is not the case. CBS is the only station to come in loud and clear consistently without messing around with my antenna (on the other hand, when it has issues, there is nothing I can do about it, either). FOX, NBC, and ABC come in year round, though they often require me to mess around with the antenna. PBS, CW, etc. only come in during the colder months and even then always require a large amount of futzing around with the antenna to be watchable.
Honestly, I'd take a SD analog signal that was watchable consistently over an HD signal that is often choppy or gone. No change of me ever getting cable, either; I don't watch enough TV to make it worthwhile (particularly since most of what I watch is on the broadcast channels anyways), and in any case, I don't want to have to deal with a box (and therefore a third remote and having to change inputs whenever I want to watch TV) when my TV's built-in tuner works perfectly fine.
See my avatar. Technological regression is real.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 06:55:52 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.
So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)
It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Quote from: bandit957 on May 31, 2018, 03:58:23 PM
Also, I think records were better than CD's.
Debatable if more than sound quality is considered. I don't recall cars every having record players or there being a portable record player that listened to while walking.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?
I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PMOr, if that isn't something you've observed personally, what about some other examples of regression that you've experienced? I just don't want us to get too sidetracked on the issue of terrible customer service, which is really a whole other topic and probably quite separate from the technology issue.
I mean, I think technology begat terrible customer service, but...
Technology takes away flexibility. I can't tell a kiosk at McDonalds I want, say, well-done bacon or an untoasted bun. An airline kiosk can't put me on an earlier flight I'm not actually entitled to take. A hotel app will let me pick my own room, but can't recommend one based on a specific set of criteria I can give to a front desk clerk.
And I'm not sure social media is good for society overall, either.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 10:21:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?
I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.
http://youtu.be/rKiQqxHp5E8
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 06:55:52 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.
So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)
It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat or milk a cow, make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.
Flintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions. Those who love some noise in their music, loose gunpowder all over their home and some rot in their steak are free to feel their superiority.
we do have a somewhat different set of survival skills than 200, 100 or even 50 years ago. This is natural.
I think I know one skill that is more or less lost over time, but even explaining what it is would take too much room as it is really a very niche thing.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
See my avatar. Technological regression is real.
Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 10:21:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?
I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how those two clauses relate; and besides, I can't corroborate the second part. As the person on the other end of the line, it has indeed happened to me.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 10:38:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat or milk a cow, make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.
No...no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.
QuoteFlintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.
Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2018, 12:25:14 AM
Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.
That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2018, 12:25:14 AM
Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.
That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.
I disagree. In the example of the Concorde, it's not that technology has regressed to the point that we
can't build Concordes anymore, but that there is no
profit in it, so nobody actually does it. Theoretically some non-profit organization could put together a supersonic jet, but without the profit motive there's little practical reason to do so.
It's like going to the Moon. We have the capability and the materials. We just don't have a pressing non-profit reason to, and nobody's figured out how to profit off of it, so we haven't gone there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2018, 12:25:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
See my avatar. Technological regression is real.
Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.
Thanks for bringing a good point. And is that a regression to begin with?
I don't know when was the last time you experienced a re-usable sterilized syringe needle, as sharp as your old kitchen knife? Manual sharpening isn't cheap - high volume electropolishing is cheaper, as well as gamma-sterilizing.
We do have different metrics we use today, price definitely being a major one. Pride (Apollo project; COncorde - which some call European version of Apollo project) may be a good driving force - if it works. Price consciousness is not always for better, but definitely not always for the worse.
And a very good example:
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
See my avatar. Technological regression is real.
OK, and how many people over here would afford $8k tickets (BA supersonic fare I remember from 1999)?
We had someone in another thread talking about fuel savings as an advantage of lower speed driving. Savings averaging $4.50/hour. I, for myself, can put up for 10-20 hours of some discomfort for 4-digit savings..
And as for purely technological aspect of it - there are more F-35's flying than total Concordes built.
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 10:38:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat or milk a cow, make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.
No…no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.
QuoteFlintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.
Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.
An in light of all above... of course different technology can have drawbacks, real or perceived.
One of aspects of digital phone system is virtual disappearance of long distant call fees - and more long distance communication overall. Exhibit 1: http://aaroads.com
That is, actually, another aspect of call handling quality: there are no longer per-minute call costs; and calls are often a second tier communication methods. How often you can solve the problem by looking up solution on google - as opposed to a call? On a similar note, I often find e-mail handling to be higher quality compared to calls. And no problems with forwarding... Talking about more adequate technologies...
Overall, people seems to value small advantages (real or not) of old tech while taking improvements for granted - see long distance fees passage above.
Two of hot topics where this shows are immunizations (when was last large scale epidemics?) and GMO (what does "starve to death" means?)
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Oh, and to touch on TV specifically.. That is, again, a victim of proliferation of digital communications.
Main driving force behind elimination of analog TV is attempt to get more frequency bands available - in particular for cell data service. Digital is really an elephant in the room...
Or the other way of looking at it is that there is single irreplaceable resource, frequency spectrum, and use of it need to be controlled. Sort of similar to air - ozone holes,
global wa..climate change, acid rains, all that. And do you think going back to windmills for power generation is also a sign of technological degradation?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2018, 12:25:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
See my avatar. Technological regression is real.
Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.
I think it's some of each. Concorde was never intended to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight. They intended it to be the first generation design. The unbuilt second generation would have used less fuel due to not needing afterburners, for example, and would have had improved subsonic fuel efficiency due to wing modifications. I think, like with other aircraft and with cars and computers, the design would and should have continued to evolve and improve, resulting also in increased range, which in turn should have led to a market among the Asian carriers had there been an SST with transpacific nonstop capability. CNN had an article the other day about current SSTs in development and the heavy Asian interest in those. As it was, I believe a Tokyo-to-LA flight would have required fuel stops in Honolulu and Guam, which in turn would have been a hassle for US-bound passengers because the US handles immigration control differently from most other countries (you have to clear immigration and re-clear security at the first US airport you reach). Eliminate that problem and the transpacific market is potentially huge (emphasis on "potentially," of course).
Concorde had the horrible misfortune of coming into service between the two oil shocks of the 1970s, too. So that certainly hurt the commercial side at the time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2018, 07:51:11 AMConcorde had the horrible misfortune of coming into service between the two oil shocks of the 1970s, too. So that certainly hurt the commercial side at the time.
I apologize if I've mentioned this on this board previously, but I read a theory that what actually killed Concorde was the fax machine. It would make its money by being the fastest way to get a document from New York to London, and then suddenly we were able to send documents from New York to London almost instantly. I think that theory is fascinating.
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 10:21:36 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?
I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how those two clauses relate; and besides, I can't corroborate the second part. As the person on the other end of the line, it has indeed happened to me.
I should clarify that an automated system that transfers calls just doesn't transfer the call to the wrong place. Nor would a scenario where a CSR clicks "transfer to customer retention" on their computer and the call doesn't transfer. It's possible that someone could click "disconnect" when they meant to click "transfer to customer retention," but systems are designed to ensure that couldn't happen easily.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2018, 07:51:11 AM
Concorde was never intended to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight. They intended it to be the first generation design. The unbuilt second generation would have used less fuel due to not needing afterburners, for example, and would have had improved subsonic fuel efficiency due to wing modifications.
The American SST would have been much larger and much faster. The Boeing 2707 (actually Model 733) would have cruised at Mach 2.7 and carried about 250 passengers. Its development advanced to the point where it had over 100 ordered by the airlines. Cancelled because of the combination of increasing fuel prices, unacceptable sonic boom issues over land, construction complexity due to the amount of titanium needed for those speeds, maintenance complexity, and the fact that it still didn't have the range for a Pacific non-stop flight.
Supersonic airliners in general suffer from those issues.
A friend of mine elsewhere online just read a book called FAXED by Jonathan Coopersmith. I'll have to ask him if he came across anything about its SST-killing capabilites.
I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.
PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2018, 03:30:32 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 01:20:37 AM
That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.
I disagree. In the example of the Concorde, it's not that technology has regressed to the point that we can't build Concordes anymore, but that there is no profit in it, so nobody actually does it. Theoretically some non-profit organization could put together a supersonic jet, but without the profit motive there's little practical reason to do so.
You don't disagree at all, you're just using a different name for it. But we're both talking about precisely the same thing. If it will move things along, we can just call it "Elmer" and be done with it. :-D
(That being said, I've already found a couple articles on the subject that also use the name "technological regression", or in some cases simply "technological regress".)
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 03:39:28 AM
OK, and how many people over here would afford $8k tickets (BA supersonic fare I remember from 1999)?
We had someone in another thread talking about fuel savings as an advantage of lower speed driving. Savings averaging $4.50/hour. I, for myself, can put up for 10-20 hours of some discomfort for 4-digit savings..
And as for purely technological aspect of it - there are more F-35's flying than total Concordes built.
I think that point's clear; nobody seems to dispute that economic forces are the cause of the phenomenon, so no need to persuade us of it. But that's not quite what I was wondering. I'm asking if technological regression (or Elmer, if you prefer) is an observed, known principle or law–something that's gained scholarly acceptance or at least analysis by those who study these things. It may be all caused by economic forces, or may be just a collection of different examples with unrelated causes, but is it something we can observe, and predict to occur with a fair degree of certainty?
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2018, 10:38:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat or milk a cow, make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.
No...no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.
QuoteFlintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.
Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.
QuoteOn a similar note, I often find e-mail handling to be higher quality compared to calls. And no problems with forwarding... Talking about more adequate technologies...
Yes, another excellent example! If we compare telephone with email, the older method transmits both words and their inflection across long distances. The newer method transmits only the words, without inflection (as did the now-obsolete telegraph). E-mail adds new capabilities, of course, most notably data, but as for the simple technological problem of moving words across long distances, it is less functional than the older telephone.
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 07:21:27 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 09:51:08 PM
How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?
QuoteAnd do you think going back to windmills for power generation is also a sign of technological degradation
No; you may be confusing my use of "regression" with technological reversion. I'm not talking about reverting to older technologies when newer ones are more adequate. I'm talking about adopting new technologies, even though the older ones are more adequate.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 09:12:28 AM
I should clarify that an automated system that transfers calls just doesn't transfer the call to the wrong place. Nor would a scenario where a CSR clicks "transfer to customer retention" on their computer and the call doesn't transfer. It's possible that someone could click "disconnect" when they meant to click "transfer to customer retention," but systems are designed to ensure that couldn't happen easily.
Oh, yeah, I didn't know you were talking about specific causes for the failed transfer. I wasn't talking about the specific reasons for the error, just saying that they do, indeed, happen. Which is counter-intuitive since, as you say, technology allows us to design for greater avoidance of these errors, yet they actually seem to be increasing.
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.
PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?
Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).
And even digital cameras have lens caps.
My main role at the university I work for is to enhance business productivity. One of my first major projects was using Nolji (Knowledge) - a way for clients to mass upload documents, add metadata and keep it in a cloud-based secure-storage facility for retention purposes (laws vary, but most of our documents need to be stored for 10 years maximum). When the project started years before me, they had a tractor-trailer back up to a building and empty out six rooms full of documents, where a company went through and scanned the documents en masse. Impressive to say the least.
But now that software is at the end of its life cycle and it's not being renewed. So now we are in a year-long procurement process to find a replacement. But in the end, it rid us of inefficient practices of having to sort through countless documents, allowed us to add metadata, add in OCR scanning for text searches, and helped us remain compliant with all federal and state regulations.
Someone mentioned phone systems earlier - which is an interesting topic. We currently run copper-based phone systems, but the equipment is well overdue for replacement. It doesn't allow for many of the functions people want or desire these days - video calling, group conferencing, etc. We looked into a VOIP system - even ones that essentially had an Android device built in as part of the handset. But why bother? We, as an organization, are testing out Microsoft Teams for team-based communication and collaboration. It's always available, works on every PC, Mac, iPhone, and Android device. And it integrates with VOIP systems. Teams is part of our A3 Office 365 package, so it's something that we already have, is "free," and can deploy rapidly with just orientation and light training. No wires, no fuss.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 10:04:22 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.
PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?
Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).
And even digital cameras have lens caps.
My friend does not recall seeing the theory you mentioned in the book he read. That doesn't mean that it's not true, though; or fascinating.
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 10:04:22 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.
PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?
Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).
And even digital cameras have lens caps.
My friend does not recall seeing the theory you mentioned in the book he read. That doesn't mean that it's not true, though; or fascinating.
I wish I could remember where I saw or heard it.
I also wonder if three-hour delivery would've really commanded that much of a premium over overnight delivery, or how much demand there would have been for it.
Were there other enviro concerns beyond noise pollution wrt SST?
Quote from: empirestate on June 01, 2018, 10:01:34 AM
I think that point's clear; nobody seems to dispute that economic forces are the cause of the phenomenon, [..]
Yes, another excellent example! If we compare telephone with email, the older method transmits both words and their inflection across long distances. The newer method transmits only the words, without inflection (as did the now-obsolete telegraph). E-mail adds new capabilities, of course, most notably data, but as for the simple technological problem of moving words across long distances, it is less functional than the older telephone.
[..]
No; you may be confusing my use of "regression" with technological reversion. I'm not talking about reverting to older technologies when newer ones are more adequate. I'm talking about adopting new technologies, even though the older ones are more adequate.
How adequate something is - and what is better what is worse - is determined by some set of metrics (even if that happens on a non-formal level), and those metrics do change over time. And there are different metrics for different situations.
You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description.
Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM.. It also allows better time allocation, no wait on hold and no idle CSRs.. No accents, no background noise..
You may say "personal touch" - which seem to become less important by now.. Cost is a much bigger point.
So my impression is that text communication is more adequate for modern business.
Another thing is that old system often comes with some handycap. Like lot of manual labor, or unfit for increased volume, or high use of resources.. Or once again, priority changes - by now getting documents from London City to Wall Street within few hours is less of an issue. And overnight delivery within single continent works just fine (FedEx, UPS, DHL) - and role of digital system behind it is not to be underestimated.
I get that impression too - but each individual should be adaptable to the changing needs of a workplace. I know some people are still turned off by instant communication, such as chat, but it offers many of us the gratification of shorter reply cycles. And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.
We had one guy interview for a director position here. Needless to say, he turned -everyone- off when he said he prefers face-to-face communication. Deliberately not using or answering chat communications. Disliked answering phones. He actually just enjoyed walking around and seeing what's up and if they needed anything. While I get some people like face-to-face talks, most of us in the grind really would just prefer to be reached in more convenient and efficient manners.
Quote from: seicer on June 01, 2018, 12:34:31 PM
And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.
You can also get richer communication by meeting face-to-face, or picking up the phone and calling them. The problem is when people attempt a one-size-fits-all approach to communication. Each situation has its own best solution.
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 10:54:45 AM
Were there other enviro concerns beyond noise pollution wrt SST?
The noise issues were both that of sonic booms as well as at takeoff. A heavily loaded B-2707 would use afterburners on takeoff and could easily produce 3 times the noise as a B-747. Concorde itself is much noisier on takeoff than other airliners.
The cruising altitudes of about 65,000 to 72,000 feet presented several issues not seen at the current 28,000 to about 37,000 feet. The current altitudes are in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere, depending on how that transition varies by season and part of the world, and there is enough vertical circulation there to remove contrails and particulate matter produced by jet engines.
The SST altitudes are well into the stratosphere and there is much less vertical circulation there, and there were concerns that large amount of air traffic there could cause serious and persistent long lasting problems with contrails and particulate matter. There were also concerns that could damage the ozone layer.
Concorde was unbelievably noisy. I was at the University of Reading while BA was operating it between Heathrow and JFK, and the noise from the departures was so bad, they practically had to stop lecturing while it flew overhead.
Quote from: seicer on June 01, 2018, 12:34:31 PM
I get that impression too - but each individual should be adaptable to the changing needs of a workplace. I know some people are still turned off by instant communication, such as chat, but it offers many of us the gratification of shorter reply cycles. And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.
We had one guy interview for a director position here. Needless to say, he turned -everyone- off when he said he prefers face-to-face communication. Deliberately not using or answering chat communications. Disliked answering phones. He actually just enjoyed walking around and seeing what's up and if they needed anything. While I get some people like face-to-face talks, most of us in the grind really would just prefer to be reached in more convenient and efficient manners.
I understand the preference, but actively avoiding other types of communication? Wonder if he ever found work that way.
IM/email allows me to multitask and triage anything that needs my focus. Phone calls or face-to-face meetings require me to drop everything else usually and focus entirely on the other person(s), which will tick me off if for something trivial. Makes sense in the modern world to start small (and cheap) and work your way up if need be.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.
Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
So my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?
Phones that do a million and one things but are confusing to learn, and staff turnover so many staff haven't mastered them by the time they've moved on.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 01:05:29 PM
Concorde was unbelievably noisy. I was at the University of Reading while BA was operating it between Heathrow and JFK, and the noise from the departures was so bad, they practically had to stop lecturing while it flew overhead.
Concorde had a takeoff speed of 220 knots (253 mph, 408 km/h) and had turbojet engines that used afterburners on takeoff.
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
I used to live in Arlington, VA, very close to a flight path to/from National Airport, so yes, I'm aware how much quieter, say, a 737-800 is than a 727.
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines. Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.
Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise. That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed. I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines. Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.
Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise. That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed. I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.
I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde. Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines. Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.
Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise. That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed. I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.
I am more talking about how development went into
different direction. Instead of going faster, new technology which replaces "old-still-good" one focuses on noise; on fuel economy - converting that to range and/or ticket price; on operational reliability (not always with great success, though).
It is not too obvious by just looking at pictures - but changes are there..
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 04:58:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines. Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.
Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise. That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed. I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.
I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde. Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.
I toured the cabin of the Concorde on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Small, no more legroom or shoulder room than coach on a domestic airline. If I'd paid thousands for a seat, I'd be unhappy, even though it would be only a couple of hours instead of 8 or so.
Quote from: kkt on June 01, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 01, 2018, 04:58:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 01:42:13 PM
Typical takeoff air speeds for jetliners are in the 130—155 knot range (150—180 mph, 240—285 km/h). They have turbofan engines which are considerably quieter than turbojet engines.
... and noise reduction is one of those areas where significant improvement were achieved - and while new technology may seem not much better than old one, there is significant difference when you have planes of different generations flying overhead
The original jet airliners had pure turbojet engines. Later airliners have high-bypass turbofan engines and they are more efficient as well as quieter.
Supersonic airliners in the Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to Mach 2.7 (B-2707) range had delta wings and pure turbojet engines that were optimized for supersonic cruise. That means a long takeoff roll with afterburners and a very high takeoff speed. I am not sure how today's technology would be different at least in those regards.
I think the focus since Concorde has been on either (a) smaller supersonic jets, to cater to the ultra-rich or (b) supersonic jets that can accommodate a higher number of passengers, meaning ticket prices and operating costs aren't as high as they were on Concorde. Presumably the former would be quieter, but not the latter.
I toured the cabin of the Concorde on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Small, no more legroom or shoulder room than coach on a domestic airline. If I'd paid thousands for a seat, I'd be unhappy, even though it would be only a couple of hours instead of 8 or so.
Yeah, I've walked around the one on the USS Intrepid, and it looked horrid. BA tried to compensate by offering a bunch of amenities while on the ground, not sure what Air France did.
This is some interesting timing. This story was published at least 2 days ago, but I just now saw it. There are hopes for non-stop trans-Pacific capable supersonic air travel, with development in early stages. It would get from Sydney to Los Angeles in under 7 hours. The craft would travel at 1,451 mph (Mach 2.2).
Quote
Even with fewer seats, the fares could be more attainable. Compared with Concorde's roughly $11,000-13,000 roundtrip tickets between New York and London, Boom fares will cost an estimated $5,000 round trip on the same route.
It would have just 55 seats, would travel at 60,000 feet, and would be designed to reduce boom. They expect the design would be "at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's."
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom-supersonic-asia/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom-supersonic-asia/index.html)
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 11:55:50 AM
You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM..
Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)
Quote from: empirestate on June 02, 2018, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 11:55:50 AM
You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM..
Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)
And my answer is no, there are situations where development goes in a different direction compared to what was expected. It is not regression, it is a different
aspect of progress.
Quote from: wxfree on June 01, 2018, 11:50:12 PM
This is some interesting timing. This story was published at least 2 days ago, but I just now saw it. There are hopes for non-stop trans-Pacific capable supersonic air travel, with development in early stages. It would get from Sydney to Los Angeles in under 7 hours. The craft would travel at 1,451 mph (Mach 2.2).
It would have just 55 seats, would travel at 60,000 feet, and would be designed to reduce boom. They expect the design would be "at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's."
"The company has publicly announced plans to fly its XB-1 -- a two-seat demonstration aircraft -- in 2019 as proof of concept."
That is a far cry from the size of a 55 seat airliner. They need to build a full size prototype before they can demonstrate the very questionable claims of trans-Pacific range and such reduced noise levels.
Of course technological regression is a thing. Doesn't anyone on these boards remember the Talosians from the original Star Trek pilot? :-D
Cryptocurrencies are inferior to cash and standard credit/debit cards. They are much more volatile than standard currencies, are easier to get hacked, and if the hash function becomes no longer secure, the entire cryptocurrency collapses. There are also way too many competing cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin don't seem to be accepted anywhere.
One minor cryptocurrency also had a successful 51% attack against it. This would never happen with Bitcoin, but it could easily happen with the smaller ones.
(note: details may be inaccurate)
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2018, 09:55:01 AM
Cryptocurrencies are inferior to cash and standard credit/debit cards. They are much more volatile than standard currencies, are easier to get hacked, and if the hash function becomes no longer secure, the entire cryptocurrency collapses. There are also way too many competing cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin don't seem to be accepted anywhere.
One minor cryptocurrency also had a successful 51% attack against it. This would never happen with Bitcoin, but it could easily happen with the smaller ones.
(note: details may be inaccurate)
Cryptocurrency is another attempt to replace the current finance system - which is, frankly speaking, runs on borrowed time (pun intended) and very government-heavy. It has a lot of flaws, but likely will make a 50 year mark; and I wouldn't be so sure about 60 year mark.
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2018, 05:28:39 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 02, 2018, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2018, 11:55:50 AM
You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM..
Right, but–and I apologize I haven't been able to make this clear yet–the question is simply whether regression exists observably and predictably, not whether or not it's preferable. You don't have to justify it; you just have to say whether or not it's a thing. (Although I suppose, if it exists for you to justify, it must indeed be a thing!)
And my answer is no, there are situations where development goes in a different direction compared to what was expected. It is not regression, it is a different
aspect of progress.
Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?
Quote from: empirestate on June 02, 2018, 11:14:52 AM
Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?
I can think of one company which used to do innovation seemingly for the sake of innovation, and they are successfully growing themselves into Fortune top 50 (starting from position in Fortune top 5).
For the rest of situations you describe, it is either poor design (yes, there is often less time spent before product hits the market) or you are looking at minority who like some side feature. And yes, it is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone. It is about the ratio after all - who benefits from, say, driving a car with a variator - vs those who miss manual shiftstick. Or look up paper map vs GPS debate in this forum.
if anything is on decline, that is the technological and scientific awareness of general public. You can definitely have more awareness about how things work if repair and DIY options exist. Something that is not factored in many modern designs, and often plainly impossible at present technology level. How do you expect kids to understand concept of cell phone communications without giving them a chance to play with AM receiver? And AM is no longer cool, barely any reason to tune to AM these days, no longer makes sense to put AM radio together...
Quote from: qguy on June 02, 2018, 09:25:28 AM
Of course technological regression is a thing. Doesn't anyone on these boards remember the Talosians from the original Star Trek pilot? :-D
Plenty of examples in novels --
Alas, Babylon
by Pat Frank
"Alas, Babylon." Those fateful words heralded the end. When a nuclear holocaust ravages the United States, a thousand years of civilization are stripped away overnight, and tens of millions of people are killed instantly. But for one small town in Florida, miraculously spared, the struggle is just beginning, as men and women of all backgrounds join together to confront the darkness.
https://www.amazon.com/Alas-Babylon-Pat-Frank/dp/0060741872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527960507&sr=8-1&keywords=alas+babylon+by+pat+frank
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time might be another example of what Beltway cites. The Age of Legends was an age of all sorts of technology (apparently including SSTs, to tie the thread together–in Jordan's legendarium they were called "sho-wings"), but the drilling of the Bore and then the Breaking of the World resulted in most of that being lost.
John Christopher's Tripods (or White Mountains) trilogy might be seen as technological regression given mankind's living in largely medieval conditions, but a more accurate description might be technological stasis given the way technology is rapidly rediscovered at the series' conclusion.
It took me a couple of days to realize that there's an answer to this question. Yes: see the Roman Empire. (Are there threads on the Appian Way here?)
The Apollo Project was mentioned earlier, which is an apt example. Even in modern NASA projects to return to the Moon, it isn't as simple as building Apollo again; the technology to get to the Moon literally has to be re-invented.
Roman aqueducts in the early Middle Ages are another good example. All it took was a couple generations and nobody knew how to build or maintain them any more. Lots of Roman knowledge was either locked up in monasteries and/or re-learned from the Middle East.
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
The Apollo Project was mentioned earlier, which is an apt example. Even in modern NASA projects to return to the Moon, it isn't as simple as building Apollo again; the technology to get to the Moon literally has to be re-invented.
Manned space programs had to be undertaken to see what was involved in the first place, only by doing them could it be determined what would be the costs and complexity and feasibility. Now that they have been done with several hundred missions including to the Moon and to the space shuttle and international space station, many people are questioning whether the benefits justify the costs of future programs.
Is there really anything on the Moon to warrant the costs of going there in the future? Or Mars, which averages 500 times farther away than the Moon and has had more failed missions than successful missions?
The unmanned space programs have been very successful and productive, for weather, communication, military and research. New manned programs would cost orders of magnutide more.
Quote from: kalvado on June 02, 2018, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 02, 2018, 11:14:52 AM
Well, wait–if it's an inherent aspect of progress, then yes, it is a thing, 100 per cent. But yet your answer is no? Could it be that you observe the same thing, but merely would call it by a different name? If instead of "technological regression" we both agree to simply call it Elmer, would that change your answer to a yes?
I can think of one company which used to do innovation seemingly for the sake of innovation, and they are successfully growing themselves into Fortune top 50 (starting from position in Fortune top 5).
For the rest of situations you describe, it is either poor design (yes, there is often less time spent before product hits the market) or you are looking at minority who like some side feature. And yes, it is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone. It is about the ratio after all - who benefits from, say, driving a car with a variator - vs those who miss manual shiftstick. Or look up paper map vs GPS debate in this forum.
if anything is on decline, that is the technological and scientific awareness of general public. You can definitely have more awareness about how things work if repair and DIY options exist. Something that is not factored in many modern designs, and often plainly impossible at present technology level. How do you expect kids to understand concept of cell phone communications without giving them a chance to play with AM receiver? And AM is no longer cool, barely any reason to tune to AM these days, no longer makes sense to put AM radio together...
Looks like our two conversations have now fully diverged. ;-) I'm just gonna go ahead and put you down as a "yes."
Quote from: jon daly on June 02, 2018, 02:15:26 PM
It took me a couple of days to realize that there's an answer to this question. Yes: see the Roman Empire. (Are there threads on the Appian Way here?)
By this point, I'm fully persuaded that the answer is indeed yes. Since the question has prompted a variety of examples of the phenomenon, and a range of explanations for why the phenomenon occurs, then it is incontrovertible that the phenomenon must, in the first place, exist. And besides the discussion here, I've also found at least a few outside sources that explore this exact topic; so, I can corroborate that the phenomenon is observed and analyzed by those who are in the habit of doing so. It is, indeed, a thing!
Maybe the right term is devolution. One system that's devolved due to increasing connectivity is the electrical system. James Burke's old TV show CONNECTIONS started with the great Northeast Blackout from the Sixties. I imagine a similar failure in one locale would spread more catastrophically today. I think we now know more about how the grid is vulnerable to solar activity but I'm not sure if we've built the levees and dams that prevent a local problem from spreading further and wider along the grid.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 10:21:36 PM
I mean, I think technology begat terrible customer service, but...
Technology takes away flexibility. I can't tell a kiosk at McDonalds I want, say, well-done bacon or an untoasted bun. An airline kiosk can't put me on an earlier flight I'm not actually entitled to take. A hotel app will let me pick my own room, but can't recommend one based on a specific set of criteria I can give to a front desk clerk.
As someone who uses these apps...Probably a combination of things:
1) the apps are programmed to be "lightweight" but not all-encompassing
2) some of these upgrades / changes / personal selections aren't available to all users (which from my basic understanding of IF-THEN statements, shouldn't be all the difficult to program in once you've logged in which validates your status)
3) Decisions that have to be weighed by a real person that hard logic cannot at for a lack of compassion or understanding which is more important. (Is it effective for a computer to "do the dirty work" which might wind up getting a customer bounced back to customer service and possibly more annoyed?)
Of course, the App is usually the simpler way to use a website, but sometimes in a way that is bereft of some of the finest settings. Ironically, many mobile websites now maddeningly refer you Their App, when the App didn't have what you wanted to set in the first place. So then you have to use a personal computer to do the same thing you couldn't accomplish two other ways.
In some ways, the App is also technological regression, but 95% of who might use it is usually much more convenient.
QuoteAnd I'm not sure social media is good for society overall, either.
Probably more due to
unintended circumstances. But just as people became addicted to reading too many books, watched too much TV, and became addicted to the Internet, it was pretty much expected that some folks were going to be addicted to social media websites.
Obviously, it's a much easier way to share photos and videos between friends, and certainly in a time before most everyone had a smartphone. I suppose sharing by text drops information into the ether, whereas something like Facebook gives one a little bit more feeling of permanence. When the ability to share everything and prattle off opinions about every little thing took off, the metrics about sharing/discussing becomes "news" in its own right, it becomes a tad short of ridiculous.
At the end of the day, the Internet is a tool that's good for information sharing and research, and mankind will use a tool in a way to reap the greatest self-satisfaction, if they so desire.
It's less the addiction and more the fact that it's bringing together people who shouldn't be brought together in the first place. For instance, I believe school shooters are attaining a level of fame they never would have attained in the era of four TV channels and letters written with pen and paper.
Quote from: empirestate on June 03, 2018, 12:45:15 AM
Looks like our two conversations have now fully diverged. ;-) I'm just gonna go ahead and put you down as a "yes."
Quote from: jon daly on June 02, 2018, 02:15:26 PM
It took me a couple of days to realize that there's an answer to this question. Yes: see the Roman Empire. (Are there threads on the Appian Way here?)
By this point, I'm fully persuaded that the answer is indeed yes. Since the question has prompted a variety of examples of the phenomenon, and a range of explanations for why the phenomenon occurs, then it is incontrovertible that the phenomenon must, in the first place, exist. And besides the discussion here, I've also found at least a few outside sources that explore this exact topic; so, I can corroborate that the phenomenon is observed and analyzed by those who are in the habit of doing so. It is, indeed, a thing!
Another aspect of your question: are you talking about possibility of technological degradation in general - or if it exists now and here?
There are plenty of historical examples of degradation, mostly coupled to social and/or economic issues. Another presidential election is not going to be enough of a reason for that - until California actually decides to split off after certain twitter user gets a second term.
Oh, and do you mind sharing the references you found?
Several examples that I like to use as to why older tech is in many ways superior to newer tech.
- Servicing cars. One example that I love bringing up is doing simple repairs such as replacing the heater core in a car. A couple of generations ago, into the 1970s, changing the heater core was often a 15-20 minute DIY job, even easier if you had a second person to hold the hoses while they were disconnected. NOW - it's major surgery. With my former car (a 1997 Chevy Cavalier), it was 4.5 hours of standard labor for that - the whole dashboard had to be disassembled. When I had to have that done, my mechanic told me that for some cars (and he specifically said "some Volkswagons"), the heater core was *14.5 hours* of standard labor. At $75/h, that's almost $1.1K just for the shop to do the work, not including any parts and other supplies!
:banghead:
And today's younger crowd has little of the tinkering with cars interest that they had a generation or two ago due to that massive over complexity of cars, not to say all of the other things that are grabbing their collective attention (on-line gaming, etc) and even incompetent high school counselors who stare down their noses at the highly satisfying - and often very rewarding - blue-collar trades.
- Cash - *HORRORS* to the economy and especially for the modern kids if the power goes out for more than a few minutes. For an example, one of the first things that went to Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria last year was a large transport planeload of cash (as in $1s, $5s, $10s, etc) so that the economy there could function at a bare basic level in the presence of a completely destroyed power supply and telecom network.
I never use 'plastic' for small-time everyday things such as lunch, a beer at a local bar or to refuel the car.
Also besides the above, it is exceedingly difficult to hack cash, as opposed to credit/debit accounts (and far fewer hassles along the way, too!). And if the card does become lost or unusable, yes my financial losses would be minimal at most, but I'd still be without it for the several days that it would take for me to get a replacement card.
- Broadcast radio - which continues to work when most other forms of mass communications fail. I have zero use for paid on-line and satellite music services, too.
- GPS - highly useful as a way of knowing where one is in this World and where he or she is going, but way, way, WAAAY too many are becoming overreliant on it and getting into REAL trouble as a result. Learn maps and geography, people!
- Text messaging v. voice calls and even simple in-person communications. If I ran a bar, instead of the old cliché of the gun check lockers by the door, I'd do that for cell phones. 'Check your phones at the door' and *TALK* to each other! It's also über-annoying to see everyone else at work clicking away on their phones (text messaging, game playing, etc) instead of getting stuff done.
:verymad:
I could go on.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2018, 12:47:33 PM
Several examples that I like to use as to why older tech is in many ways superior to newer tech.
- Servicing cars. One example that I love bringing up is doing simple repairs such as replacing the heater core in a car. A couple of generations ago, into the 1970s, changing the heater core was often a 15-20 minute DIY job, even easier if you had a second person to hold the hoses while they were disconnected. NOW - it's major surgery. With my former car (a 1997 Chevy Cavalier), it was 4.5 hours of standard labor for that - the whole dashboard had to be disassembled. When I had to have that done, my mechanic told me that for some cars (and he specifically said "some Volkswagons"), the heater core was *14.5 hours* of standard labor. At $75/h, that's almost $1.1K just for the shop to do the work, not including any parts and other supplies!
:banghead:
And today's younger crowd has little of the tinkering with cars interest that they had a generation or two ago due to that massive over complexity of cars, not to say all of the other things that are grabbing their collective attention (on-line gaming, etc) and even incompetent high school counselors who stare down their noses at the highly satisfying - and often very rewarding - blue-collar trades.
- Cash - *HORRORS* to the economy and especially for the modern kids if the power goes out for more than a few minutes. For an example, one of the first things that went to Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria last year was a large transport planeload of cash (as in $1s, $5s, $10s, etc) so that the economy there could function at a bare basic level in the presence of a completely destroyed power supply and telecom network.
I never use 'plastic' for small-time everyday things such as lunch, a beer at a local bar or to refuel the car.
Also besides the above, it is exceedingly difficult to hack cash, as opposed to credit/debit accounts (and far fewer hassles along the way, too!). And if the card does become lost or unusable, yes my financial losses would be minimal at most, but I'd still be without it for the several days that it would take for me to get a replacement card.
- Broadcast radio - which continues to work when most other forms of mass communications fail. I have zero use for paid on-line and satellite music services, too.
- GPS - highly useful as a way of knowing where one is in this World and where he or she is going, but way, way, WAAAY too many are becoming overreliant on it and getting into REAL trouble as a result. Learn maps and geography, people!
- Text messaging v. voice calls and even simple in-person communications. If I ran a bar, instead of the old cliché of the gun check lockers by the door, I'd do that for cell phones. 'Check your phones at the door' and *TALK* to each other! It's also über-annoying to see everyone else at work clicking away on their phones (text messaging, game playing, etc) instead of getting stuff done.
:verymad:
I could go on.
Mike
How many times did you have cash stollen from your pocket, and how many times that happened with plastic?
And, interestingly enough, when I talked to our canteen operator at work (manager was working the register that day), he explicitly preferred plastic for $4 transaction because it is faster. He also mentioned that my first choice of lunch for $4 makes more money for them than my second choice at $7 - just because first one is mostly self-service as opposed to something made-to-order.
As for service complexity... a parallel example: kerosene lamps can be manually serviced, and candles can be made from scratch at home - unlike incandescent bulbs you cannot make at home, or high-tech LED (as a matter of fact, Nakamura got a Nobel prize for development of technology which is used for LED fabrication). And while kerosene is still a purchased product, beekeeper can make candles with wax at home.. Unlike electric lights which depend on grid..
Do you think switching to LED is a sign of regressive development?
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2018, 12:58:54 PMHow many times did you have cash stollen from your pocket, and how many times that happened with plastic?
And, interestingly enough, when I talked to our canteen operator at work (manager was working the register that day), he explicitly preferred plastic for $4 transaction because it is faster. He also mentioned that my first choice of lunch for $4 makes more money for them than my second choice at $7 - just because first one is mostly self-service as opposed to something made-to-order.
As for service complexity... a parallel example: kerosene lamps can be manually serviced, and candles can be made from scratch at home - unlike incandescent bulbs you cannot make at home, or high-tech LED (as a matter of fact, Nakamura got a Nobel prize for development of technology which is used for LED fabrication). And while kerosene is still a purchased product, beekeeper can make candles with wax at home.. Unlike electric lights which depend on grid..
Do you think switching to LED is a sign of regressive development?
As I tell others - if I accidentally drop a $5, $10 or even a $20, yes, I'm out that money. OTOH, I'm out that money - AND NOTHING ELSE. No having to call my bank or the card issuer and cancel/replace the card, no waiting for the replacement and being without it, etc. No hassles. And in most cases, I likely wouldn't even notice it missing.
And yes, I also often find myself stuck in the checkout line at a store with a small load of stuff when the customers in front are having troubles completing their non-cash transactions.
As for LED lamps, "It depends". There is another thread in here about bad LED light coloring. Even then, there are places where incandescent lamps still remain the best choice.
Mike
I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't include motor sports as having its own forms of technological regression. In the dawn of the automobile, contests were held to improve the breed. Make it faster and more reliable, although sometimes at the expense of practicality. As the racing cars achieved higher velocities, accelerations, and cornering speeds, there were greater risks to both drivers and spectators. Sometimes novel ideas were fleshed out and copied; other times, they either breached the rules or new regulations were created to stem wholesale changes from changing the sport altogether or to level the playing field.
So goodbye to 1500-horsepower turbocharged-V12 engines in cars that can flex the underbody with wide rubber seals against the ground via a rear suction turbine and a flexible twin-chassis design with software that can handle and adapt to the changing conditions as the vehicle sheds weight throughout the event while the driver fatigues with each counted lap. But hello to finding solutions and innovations out of the gaps in the rules, along the hard specifications granted in the technical regulations.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 03, 2018, 11:07:55 AM
It’s less the addiction and more the fact that it’s bringing together people who shouldn’t be brought together in the first place. For instance, I believe school shooters are attaining a level of fame they never would have attained in the era of four TV channels and letters written with pen and paper.
For long periods of time, there's always been fringe media and tabloid trash. The internet - for better or for worse - has no regulation nor filter, and the masses cannot always control themselves. If it's not discussed, nothing stops gravitation to the macabre, the lies, invasion of privacy, towards respect, et cetera.
There's always been psychopaths who only see their own self-gratification with no margins for the regard of others. I'm not totally convinced most of them are interested in fame's fleeting spotlight, but see mutilation as an extremely simple solution to difficult problems they are impatient to solve.
...this is probably for another thread.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2018, 01:15:53 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2018, 12:58:54 PMHow many times did you have cash stollen from your pocket, and how many times that happened with plastic?
And, interestingly enough, when I talked to our canteen operator at work (manager was working the register that day), he explicitly preferred plastic for $4 transaction because it is faster. He also mentioned that my first choice of lunch for $4 makes more money for them than my second choice at $7 - just because first one is mostly self-service as opposed to something made-to-order.
As for service complexity... a parallel example: kerosene lamps can be manually serviced, and candles can be made from scratch at home - unlike incandescent bulbs you cannot make at home, or high-tech LED (as a matter of fact, Nakamura got a Nobel prize for development of technology which is used for LED fabrication). And while kerosene is still a purchased product, beekeeper can make candles with wax at home.. Unlike electric lights which depend on grid..
Do you think switching to LED is a sign of regressive development?
As I tell others - if I accidentally drop a $5, $10 or even a $20, yes, I'm out that money. OTOH, I'm out that money - AND NOTHING ELSE. No having to call my bank or the card issuer and cancel/replace the card, no waiting for the replacement and being without it, etc. No hassles. And in most cases, I likely wouldn't even notice it missing.
And yes, I also often find myself stuck in the checkout line at a store with a small load of stuff when the customers in front are having troubles completing their non-cash transactions.
As for LED lamps, "It depends". There is another thread in here about bad LED light coloring. Even then, there are places where incandescent lamps still remain the best choice.
Mike
So you are comfortable with paper currency and incandescent? How about going to easy things like gold, silver for cash and candles for light?
It wasn't that long ago that gold and silver were in regular circulation; actually certain range of US coins still has a birthmark of being valued at $20/pound from the days when that was the value of silver in those coins. And if you accidentally drop a silver or even a golden, yes, you're out that money. OTOH, I'm out that money - AND NOTHING ELSE. No having to worry about inflation, about government no longer accepting that paper (didn't happen in US, but definitely happened elsewhere) No hassles.
Quote from: formulanone on June 03, 2018, 02:26:40 PM
I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't include motor sports as having its own forms of technological regression. In the dawn of the automobile, contests were held to improve the breed.
Ditto horse racing. I was alive but too young to remember Secretariat. IIRC, he still holds the record for the Belmont.
Quote from: jon daly on June 03, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 03, 2018, 02:26:40 PM
I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't include motor sports as having its own forms of technological regression. In the dawn of the automobile, contests were held to improve the breed.
Ditto horse racing. I was alive but too young to remember Secretariat. IIRC, he still holds the record for the Belmont.
And the Kentucky Derby, and the Preakness.
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2018, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 03, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 03, 2018, 02:26:40 PM
I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't include motor sports as having its own forms of technological regression. In the dawn of the automobile, contests were held to improve the breed.
Ditto horse racing. I was alive but too young to remember Secretariat. IIRC, he still holds the record for the Belmont.
And the Kentucky Derby, and the Preakness.
Without knowing anything behind the technology behind horse racing, I think Secretariat was just one magnificent specimen of a race horse. I don't think that many rules have changed. Were rules changed after his dominance?
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2018, 12:12:01 PM
Another aspect of your question: are you talking about possibility of technological degradation in general - or if it exists now and here?
Both: if it is "a thing"–i.e., an observable principle or law, it will be found both today and throughout history.
QuoteOh, and do you mind sharing the references you found?
Rather than the technologically regressive cutting and pasting of links, I'll just cite the first page of a Google search for "technological regress". ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on June 04, 2018, 12:13:38 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2018, 12:12:01 PM
Another aspect of your question: are you talking about possibility of technological degradation in general - or if it exists now and here?
Both: if it is "a thing"–i.e., an observable principle or law, it will be found both today and throughout history.
You can argue that even supporting existing technology level is closely related to strong economy. Any strong economic issue can cause manufacturing - hence technology - slowdown and whatnot, and economic collapse can kill industries.
That did happen many times in history, too many to list. Those were mostly relatively fast and harsh.
Now if you think that it is a slow ongoing process, I really disagree with you. Goals tend to change, for better or worse..
What MAY be a thing that inspires you is a shift of development areas. Space was a hot topic for a while - but it quickly became clear it is too expensive and return of investment is low. So space exploration is all but abandoned. Can you call it regress? I don't think so, viable parts of it (weather, mapping, GPS, communications) are doing very well. Top achievements may or may not yield meaningful usable outcome. Think about any sports record. Can you imaging anyone running 100 meters in under 10 seconds outside a well equipped stadium? Does that mean humanity as a whole became physically weaker?
Empire state, it took five years but you caused me to regress. I was searching this forum and you posted this link: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/
I've been killing my day using it :).
Cryptocurrencies are specifically designed to allow users to get around various regulations governing the use of other forms of currency. If you're going to use them, I highly recommend you verify none of these regulations might actually protect you before you do so.
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
Space was a hot topic for a while - but it quickly became clear it is too expensive and return of investment is low. So space exploration is all but abandoned. Can you call it regress? I don't think so, viable parts of it (weather, mapping, GPS, communications) are doing very well.
The unmanned space program is doing fine, as I pointed out. Kennedy does about 40 orbital launches per year and Wallops does about 8 or 9, and there are other spaceports in other countries.
The manned space programs is where the question is whether it is too expensive and return of investment too low.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2018, 03:34:03 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
Space was a hot topic for a while - but it quickly became clear it is too expensive and return of investment is low. So space exploration is all but abandoned. Can you call it regress? I don't think so, viable parts of it (weather, mapping, GPS, communications) are doing very well.
The unmanned space program is doing fine, as I pointed out. Kennedy does about 40 orbital launches per year and Wallops does about 8 or 9, and there are other spaceports in other countries.
The manned space programs is where the question is whether it is too expensive and return of investment too low.
Yes. You can do many unmanned probes for the cost of a single manned mission. I'd love to see the manned space program continue, but I wouldn't want a single manned mission to swallow up the money for the entire rest of the space program.
Granted, the manned missions are good at inspiring people, and unmanned probes aren't as good. Even if they seem sexy to me - fantastic pictures of Pluto, Mars, the north pole of Saturn, amazing results from Kepler, etc. - they don't seem to inspire the general public as well.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PM
Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.
Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
So my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?
On the phone thing, we're about to find out. My office is moving into a new building that will use VOIP instead of a traditional landline phone. One plus is that I will have a direct line, and our current phone system sometimes seems to be put together with two tin cans and a string, but the downside is that whenever the network is down (which is often), the phones will also be down.
In general, technological regression is not necessarily a bad thing. My dad absolutely refused to buy a vehicle with power windows. His reasoning was that if something happens and the electrical system goes bad, the battery dies, a motor fails, or something similar, you're stuck with not being able to roll your window down or up. The last new vehicle he bought was a 1998 Chevy pickup. Manual windows were not available. He was not happy about that at all.
We become too dependent on technology.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
We become too dependent on technology.
Oh, you're a little bit way too late.
Can you - even in principle - grow crops to feed your family? You know how to handle a horse, how to plow? Even seeds are high tech today.
Water. Any idea what you're going to drink once your tap goes dry and grocery store is closed?
Heat. I do have a chimney and a small stash of firewood - but it is impossible to heat house with that. BTW, it also goes to water - if you said "I'll boil water from the stream"
Rolling windows is not even tip of an iceberg, it is small snowflake...
Dependence on technology is not necessarily a bad thing; failure to have a Plan B (and sometimes no Plan C) is the troublesome part.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
In general, technological regression is not necessarily a bad thing. My dad absolutely refused to buy a vehicle with power windows. His reasoning was that if something happens and the electrical system goes bad, the battery dies, a motor fails, or something similar, you're stuck with not being able to roll your window down or up. The last new vehicle he bought was a 1998 Chevy pickup. Manual windows were not available. He was not happy about that at all.
Not sure that is true about manual/crank windows not available after 1998...
I have driven a 2008 Ford F150, 2016 Chevy Work Van, and 2014 Chevy 3500, and all had manual/crank windows. All were work vehicles, but they came from the Factory that way. GM and Ford will make them, if you want them
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
On the phone thing, we're about to find out. My office is moving into a new building that will use VOIP instead of a traditional landline phone. One plus is that I will have a direct line, and our current phone system sometimes seems to be put together with two tin cans and a string, but the downside is that whenever the network is down (which is often), the phones will also be down.
Our office got set up with VOIP phones. For whatever reason I would randomly get a delay that would lengthen as the conversation continued. I would be on a conference call talking over people because I would be 3+ seconds behind everyone else. It drove me nuts and I would often just use my cell phone (who would've thought that would ever be more reliable than a landline?) instead.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PMHere's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.
Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.
Unlike computers or mobile phones, office phone systems are not replaced that often, especially on a scale of a large company. You replace a phone system, you have to retain everyone on how to use the system. And, the only way to even begin thinking about a phone system conversion is to have a buy-in by top management.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PMAnother example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.
For the United States/Canada analog television systems, there were three bands of channels:
- VHF Low (2 to 6) - 54 to 88 MHz (gap between channels 4 and 5)
- VHF High (7 to 13) - 174 to 216 MHz
- UHF (14 to 50) - 470 to 692 MHZ (channel 37 is not used due to radio astronomy)
- UHF-discontinued (51 to 69) - 692 to 806 MHz (removed from television use after digital conversion in 2009)
- UHF-discontinued (70 to 83) - 806 to 890 MHz (removed from television use in 1983)
When stations migrated from analog broadcasting to digital broadcast, many VHF stations were reassigned to UHF frequencies, although they may broadcast a "virtual" channel number. For Sacramento, CA's digital conversion, KCRA-3 was assigned UHF channel 35, KVIE-6 was assigned VHF channel 9, KXTV retained VHF channel 10 (pre-conversion, the Digital channel was 61), and KOVR-13 was assigned channel UHF-25. (I won't cover the UHF channels). The higher in frequency that you go, the more power it requires to travel the same distance. And, mind you, it was the FCC's desire to move all of the television stations to the UHF frequencies.
Here's the fun thing: You can't create more radio spectrum, so you have to allocate what you have available.
Quote from: empirestate on May 31, 2018, 02:36:03 PMSo my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?
If you are looking for a single big answer, it isn't going to be found. What you are going to find is plenty of small incremental reasons. Some of it involves support for legacy systems, some of it involves the costs of conversion, some of it is resistance to change.
Using credit cards, for instance, the United States was one of the last countries to adopt a chip system for payment processing. It took several major data breaches to force the change, and that took several major steps, first by issuing cards with a chip on them (the cost of a chipped card was around $1 per card, verses a few cents for just a stripe card) while having the merchants argue over who is going to pay for the new payment processing terminals. And, it's still chip-and-sign while Europe has chip-and-pin. Some merchants actually disabled chip because it was taking longer to process the transaction than by swiping. NFC payments by ApplePay or AndroidPay (which uses a virtual credit card number)? My local vet and BevMo accepts NFC payments, WalMart says **** NO!
As for digital television conversion... it was first stated with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with the original conversion date being December 31st, 2006. It was delayed several times until June 12, 2009 due to numerous reasons.
Plus, people are reluctant to adopt new technology because it changes how they do things. I have purchased all seven seasons of
Golden Girls for my mother on DVD and have even placed the episodes on a media server. Yet, despite several efforts to show her how to handle Plex, what does she do? Every night, she turns on Lifetime Television and watches
Golden Girls. How about granny in the super market who insists... on.... hand..... writing........ the........... check.............. for.................... her................ groceries (and still believing in the levitating check float)? Will check die? No, because some small businesses can't afford the credit card processing fees. Want to pay a bill with a credit card with your local government agency? There's a surcharge for that because they use a third party processing agency.
Some people are slow handwriting checks... some people are slow getting out and inserting their credit cards. Checks can be just as fast as cards: have everything filled out except the amount before the cashier is finished ringing up.
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2018, 10:35:11 AM
Some people are slow handwriting checks... some people are slow getting out and inserting their credit cards. Checks can be just as fast as cards: have everything filled out except the amount before the cashier is finished ringing up.
I've seen machines at checkout which take a blank check and fill out everything except signature. Slightly slower than a card, but not bad at all.
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
Now if you think that it is a slow ongoing process, I really disagree with you.
I don't think that it is, no. (And I don't think that it's not.) For some reason, you seem to be arguing a number of points that aren't part of my question.
QuoteCan you call it regress? I don't think so[...]
That's another one. If you can't call it regress, no problem. Like I said, we can just call it Elmer, in which case my question simply becomes "is Elmer a thing?"
Now, it so happens that Elmer is, indeed, a thing–and it actually is called regress (or regression). Whether that's an apt name is outside the scope of my question, but it's worth knowing that it is, in fact, the name that many observers use.
QuoteCan you imaging anyone running 100 meters in under 10 seconds outside a well equipped stadium? Does that mean humanity as a whole became physically weaker?
I don't know if it does; again, since that's outside the scope of my question, I haven't considered it. The effect of Elmer would be observed on a small scale; it wouldn't be something that describes human progress overall.
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 04, 2018, 09:10:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
In general, technological regression is not necessarily a bad thing. My dad absolutely refused to buy a vehicle with power windows. His reasoning was that if something happens and the electrical system goes bad, the battery dies, a motor fails, or something similar, you're stuck with not being able to roll your window down or up. The last new vehicle he bought was a 1998 Chevy pickup. Manual windows were not available. He was not happy about that at all.
Not sure that is true about manual/crank windows not available after 1998...
I have driven a 2008 Ford F150, 2016 Chevy Work Van, and 2014 Chevy 3500, and all had manual/crank windows. All were work vehicles, but they came from the Factory that way. GM and Ford will make them, if you want them
It wasn't an option on this particular truck. My dad ordered it from the factory.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
In general, technological regression is not necessarily a bad thing. My dad absolutely refused to buy a vehicle with power windows. His reasoning was that if something happens and the electrical system goes bad, the battery dies, a motor fails, or something similar, you're stuck with not being able to roll your window down or up. The last new vehicle he bought was a 1998 Chevy pickup. Manual windows were not available. He was not happy about that at all.
We become too dependent on technology.
In your example, though, technological regression would indeed be a bad thing. The regression in this case is replacing an existing technology–manual windows–with a newer one–automatic windows–that solves the same problem, but solves it less well than the older system did. So your dad would consider the regression from manual to automatic windows to be a bad thing.
Quote from: ZLoth on June 05, 2018, 05:03:15 AM
If you are looking for a single big answer, it isn't going to be found. What you are going to find is plenty of small incremental reasons.
Precisely. A single answer, yes, but not a big one. The phenomenon happens on a small scale, solving small problems: the opening of a window, the switching of a call, the recording of a musical tone.
But, just to make one thing clear: it's not reasons I'm looking for. I haven't the slightest doubt that simple economics is the reason for most of it, if not all. I'm just looking for the existence of the phenomenon to begin with. (And I'm no longer looking, for that matter–in fact, maybe I never was! Maybe my question is really just, "There's this thing called technological regression; have you noticed it too?") ;-)
I think this might also be an example of what you're looking for:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
Now if you think that it is a slow ongoing process, I really disagree with you.
I don't think that it is, no. (And I don't think that it's not.) For some reason, you seem to be arguing a number of points that aren't part of my question.
Just lets define your question a bit tighter. Do you think Elmer is a slow on-going process or a harsh catastrophic event we're witnessing in development?
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
QuoteCan you call it regress? I don't think so[...]
That's another one. If you can't call it regress, no problem. Like I said, we can just call it Elmer, in which case my question simply becomes "is Elmer a thing?"
Now, it so happens that Elmer is, indeed, a thing–and it actually is called regress (or regression). Whether that's an apt name is outside the scope of my question, but it's worth knowing that it is, in fact, the name that many observers use.
And again lets define Elmer carefully. You seem to lump up a few different things under the same umbrella...
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
In general, technological regression is not necessarily a bad thing. My dad absolutely refused to buy a vehicle with power windows. His reasoning was that if something happens and the electrical system goes bad, the battery dies, a motor fails, or something similar, you're stuck with not being able to roll your window down or up. The last new vehicle he bought was a 1998 Chevy pickup. Manual windows were not available. He was not happy about that at all.
We become too dependent on technology.
In your example, though, technological regression would indeed be a bad thing. The regression in this case is replacing an existing technology–manual windows–with a newer one–automatic windows–that solves the same problem, but solves it less well than the older system did. So your dad would consider the regression from manual to automatic windows to be a bad thing.
You cannot do an improvement such that everyone would be happy with. It is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone...
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:34:52 AMBut, just to make one thing clear: it's not reasons I'm looking for. I haven't the slightest doubt that simple economics is the reason for most of it, if not all. I'm just looking for the existence of the phenomenon to begin with. (And I'm no longer looking, for that matter–in fact, maybe I never was! Maybe my question is really just, "There's this thing called technological regression; have you noticed it too?")
The phenomenon (as described in this thread) exists, but I am not sure
technological regression is the most apposite term or the one that is favored by historians of technology. Most of the examples of it that have been cited in this thread (Roman roads, phone call switching, etc.) are cases of an existing technology being withdrawn from active use while the underlying know-how is not lost and remains available in books, patents, engineering drawings, prototypes, etc. There is a related but distinct phenomenon where the know-how is actually lost, which can happen in a variety of ways: records are not archived and are instead lost or destroyed; people who have the know-how die before they can write it down or pass it on to others; existing prototypes of an implementation are dismantled, lost, or destroyed; etc.
From the viewpoint of an economist or a historian of technology, it is advantageous to differentiate between cases where technology is abandoned or de-emphasized for economic reasons, and cases where the underlying know-how is lost. In the former case, the technological frontier of production possibility for a given society remains the same. In the latter, it shrinks.
Quote from: kalvado on June 05, 2018, 12:24:53 PMYou cannot do an improvement such that everyone would be happy with. It is impossible to do a good thing without hurting someone...
Improvement that benefits at least one person while leaving no-one worse off = Pareto gain.
Improvement that benefits at least one person while leaving others worse off in such a way that the winner(s) experience a net gain after compensating the loser(s) = Kaldor-Hicks gain.
The former is, of course, much rarer than the latter, and in real life we are far from scrupulous about insisting that winners actually compensate losers.
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:34:52 AM
In your example, though, technological regression would indeed be a bad thing. The regression in this case is replacing an existing technology–manual windows–with a newer one–automatic windows–that solves the same problem, but solves it less well than the older system did. So your dad would consider the regression from manual to automatic windows to be a bad thing.
I just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
In this case I had the windows partly open and there was a light drizzle outside. The power windows would not work. Fortunately the rain didn't get worse. Fortunately I got a jump start within 15 minutes, and was able to close the windows and get to the service shop.
Another problem would occur if you had to leave the car and walk somewhere to get access to a local phonebook to get service, and you had valuables in the car that could not be secured by closing the windows and locking the car.
Two problems with the current technology -- battery goes dead (or to insufficient level to power the car) without any advance warning. Power windows don't work, no way to manually close the windows.
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:34:52 AM
In your example, though, technological regression would indeed be a bad thing. The regression in this case is replacing an existing technology–manual windows–with a newer one–automatic windows–that solves the same problem, but solves it less well than the older system did. So your dad would consider the regression from manual to automatic windows to be a bad thing.
I just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
In this case I had the windows partly open and there was a light drizzle outside. The power windows would not work. Fortunately the rain didn't get worse. Fortunately I got a jump start within 15 minutes, and was able to close the windows and get to the service shop.
Another problem would occur if you had to leave the car and walk somewhere to get access to a local phonebook to get service, and you had valuables in the car that could not be secured by closing the windows and locking the car.
Two problems with the current technology -- battery goes dead (or to insufficient level to power the car) without any advance warning. Power windows don't work, no way to manually close the windows.
Oh, I once had the motor for a power sunroof die while the sunroof was open, and I was far too broke to have it fixed. That's one reason I'll never get another car with a sunroof.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 02:31:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
I just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
In this case I had the windows partly open and there was a light drizzle outside. The power windows would not work. Fortunately the rain didn't get worse. Fortunately I got a jump start within 15 minutes, and was able to close the windows and get to the service shop.
Another problem would occur if you had to leave the car and walk somewhere to get access to a local phonebook to get service, and you had valuables in the car that could not be secured by closing the windows and locking the car.
Two problems with the current technology -- battery goes dead (or to insufficient level to power the car) without any advance warning. Power windows don't work, no way to manually close the windows.
Oh, I once had the motor for a power sunroof die while the sunroof was open, and I was far too broke to have it fixed. That's one reason I'll never get another car with a sunroof.
I have a sunroof, and I like having the extra window and light. You can get a tarp at Lowes for about $15 that is big enough to cover the car in case I have something like that happen in the future. At least workable when the car is parked.
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 03:08:13 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 02:31:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
I just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
In this case I had the windows partly open and there was a light drizzle outside. The power windows would not work. Fortunately the rain didn't get worse. Fortunately I got a jump start within 15 minutes, and was able to close the windows and get to the service shop.
Another problem would occur if you had to leave the car and walk somewhere to get access to a local phonebook to get service, and you had valuables in the car that could not be secured by closing the windows and locking the car.
Two problems with the current technology -- battery goes dead (or to insufficient level to power the car) without any advance warning. Power windows don't work, no way to manually close the windows.
Oh, I once had the motor for a power sunroof die while the sunroof was open, and I was far too broke to have it fixed. That's one reason I'll never get another car with a sunroof.
I have a sunroof, and I like having the extra window and light. You can get a tarp at Lowes for about $15 that is big enough to cover the car in case I have something like that happen in the future. At least workable when the car is parked.
I was living in Georgia at the time, and it was unbearable in the car during the summer if you had the cover to the sunroof open and the sunroof closed. I'm no scientist, but I swear it made the greenhouse effect in the car even worse.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 03:08:13 PM
I have a sunroof, and I like having the extra window and light. You can get a tarp at Lowes for about $15 that is big enough to cover the car in case I have something like that happen in the future. At least workable when the car is parked.
I was living in Georgia at the time, and it was unbearable in the car during the summer if you had the cover to the sunroof open and the sunroof closed. I'm no scientist, but I swear it made the greenhouse effect in the car even worse.
That would be an emergency measure that I posted.
If the sun is overhead I too usually keep the curtain closed.
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 03:08:13 PM
I have a sunroof, and I like having the extra window and light. You can get a tarp at Lowes for about $15 that is big enough to cover the car in case I have something like that happen in the future. At least workable when the car is parked.
I was living in Georgia at the time, and it was unbearable in the car during the summer if you had the cover to the sunroof open and the sunroof closed. I'm no scientist, but I swear it made the greenhouse effect in the car even worse.
That would be an emergency measure that I posted.
If the sun is overhead I too usually keep the curtain closed.
Keeping the curtain closed solved the problem, but if I need to do that 6 months out of the year, why would I bother getting a sunroof?
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 06, 2018, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 04:58:02 PM
If the sun is overhead I too usually keep the curtain closed.
Keeping the curtain closed solved the problem, but if I need to do that 6 months out of the year, why would I bother getting a sunroof?
Cloudy weather, dawn, dusk, sun low near horizon. Plenty of times to open curtain.
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:24:22 PMI just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
I use a battery maintainer. I have also heard of people taking out insurance against unplanned battery failure not just by using a maintainer, but also by replacing the battery at a set interval (say two or three years) and having the alternator checked for sufficient output after every second battery replacement. Admittedly, being able to garage vehicles makes it easier to plug in a maintainer and a rapid charger when needed.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 06, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:24:22 PMI just had a battery go bad in my car. Modern cars give little or no warning that a battery is going bad. Suddenly when you try to start the car it won't start.
I use a battery maintainer. I have also heard of people taking out insurance against unplanned battery failure not just by using a maintainer, but also by replacing the battery at a set interval (say two or three years) and having the alternator checked for sufficient output after every second battery replacement. Admittedly, being able to garage vehicles makes it easier to plug in a maintainer and a rapid charger when needed.
I have a driveway but no garage. I normally get at least 5 years from a battery. I just got the car serviced a week before that and the battery supposedly was fine. This was the battery that was new with the car and it only lasted 2 1/2 years and 75,000 miles.
I had a car with a bunch of power accessories and once made the mistake of buying the cheapest battery I could find, and it would burn out the alternator every few years. Don't skimp on your car battery!
For whatever reason, I got a cheap battery that was rated for some 400 CCA (thereabouts). Of course, it died after 75,000 miles and an AAA rep tried to say it was the alternator that was failing and had it towed to a local shop where they tried to pin a $1,000 cost for a new alternator and battery. I told them to jump the battery on-site (which I was recording) - and what do you know, it worked!
But the battery died twice within a month time span after that so I went in for a replacement at my local auto shop. It was cranking only 300 CCA and could barely start in cold weather. The mechanic replaced it with a monster 800 CCA rated battery which put out a charge above its rate (880 CCA I believe), which should last seven years at a minimum and is warranted for five.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I think this might also be an example of what you're looking for:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
Yes and no. It depends, as with all of these cases, what you consider to be the technological problem being solved. If the problem is "maintaining a course without human intervention", then by definition, autopilot solves that better than human control. But if the problem is "avoiding catastrophic cascading failure of systems and safety procedures", then it certainly isn't.
Quote from: kalvado on June 05, 2018, 12:20:04 PM
Just lets define your question a bit tighter. Do you think Elmer is a slow on-going process or a harsh catastrophic event we're witnessing in development?
No. Elmer (if it exists) is an inherent characteristic of cultural progress, observable at the small scale, in discrete cases that fit a recurrent pattern.
Quote from: empirestate on June 05, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
And again lets define Elmer carefully. You seem to lump up a few different things under the same umbrella...
Sure. Elmer can be defined as the observable tendency of newer systems to solve specific technological problems less completely than older systems, as an inherent and predictable side effect of overall technological advancement.
An example of Elmer would consist of the following sequence of events:
1. A specific problem exists, to be overcome by a technological solution.
–Example: Words cannot be conveyed instantly across a great distance.
2. Technological systems develop to the point that the problem is substantially solved.
–Example: The telephone allows words to be conveyed instantly across a great distance.
3. A newer technological system emerges that solves the same problem, but is in some way inferior to the earlier system.
–Example: E-mail allows words to be conveyed instantly across a great distance, but without the tone and inflection information that can be conveyed by telephone.
4. The newer system becomes predominant over the older system, or in some cases supplants it entirely.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 05, 2018, 01:34:44 PM
From the viewpoint of an economist or a historian of technology, it is advantageous to differentiate between cases where technology is abandoned or de-emphasized for economic reasons, and cases where the underlying know-how is lost. In the former case, the technological frontier of production possibility for a given society remains the same. In the latter, it shrinks.
I think that's a very apt distinction to make. However, I also believe that the former can potentially lead to the latter, at least for all practical purposes.
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 12:38:05 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I think this might also be an example of what you're looking for:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
Yes and no. It depends, as with all of these cases, what you consider to be the technological problem being solved. If the problem is "maintaining a course without human intervention", then by definition, autopilot solves that better than human control. But if the problem is "avoiding catastrophic cascading failure of systems and safety procedures", then it certainly isn't.
What about a more generic problem - maintaining safety of operations? If you consider that as a problem, use of automation is definitely a solution as number of accidents is decreasing.
On the same page - I do have a steel axe, but I cannot make a replacement when (if) it breaks. Not a problem with most stone tools, material (stones) and tools (stones) are readily available unlike heavy steelwork machines. So do you think that going towards steel tools which require more specific fabrication skills and facilities is an example of Elmer? And steel axe, which brakes way less than a stone one, is still more Elmerish?
If so, then of course it is the way things are normally done.
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 12:38:05 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 05, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
I think this might also be an example of what you're looking for:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
Yes and no. It depends, as with all of these cases, what you consider to be the technological problem being solved. If the problem is "maintaining a course without human intervention", then by definition, autopilot solves that better than human control. But if the problem is "avoiding catastrophic cascading failure of systems and safety procedures", then it certainly isn't.
What about a more generic problem - maintaining safety of operations? If you consider that as a problem, use of automation is definitely a solution as number of accidents is decreasing.
Very true, and this is something we will have to reckon with as autonomous cars come into widespread use. It's also an interesting example of a false positive for Elmer–many people are hesitant about autonomous cars because they believe the older system, human control, will be better at preventing accidents than the autonomous system. (That may even prove correct in certain very specific instances, but not overall.)
QuoteOn the same page - I do have a steel axe, but I cannot make a replacement when (if) it breaks. Not a problem with most stone tools, material (stones) and tools (stones) are readily available unlike heavy steelwork machines. So do you think that going towards steel tools which require more specific fabrication skills and facilities is an example of Elmer?
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 04:46:22 PM
QuoteOn the same page - I do have a steel axe, but I cannot make a replacement when (if) it breaks. Not a problem with most stone tools, material (stones) and tools (stones) are readily available unlike heavy steelwork machines. So do you think that going towards steel tools which require more specific fabrication skills and facilities is an example of Elmer?
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..
In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 04:46:22 PM
QuoteOn the same page - I do have a steel axe, but I cannot make a replacement when (if) it breaks. Not a problem with most stone tools, material (stones) and tools (stones) are readily available unlike heavy steelwork machines. So do you think that going towards steel tools which require more specific fabrication skills and facilities is an example of Elmer?
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..
In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.
I dunno...taking about going to Home Depot on this particular forum seems quite normal.
I gather that at some point in the late Stone Age, someone was upset by the convenience, though the chiseled comments or stone piles may be lost to the ages.
Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2018, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 04:46:22 PM
QuoteOn the same page - I do have a steel axe, but I cannot make a replacement when (if) it breaks. Not a problem with most stone tools, material (stones) and tools (stones) are readily available unlike heavy steelwork machines. So do you think that going towards steel tools which require more specific fabrication skills and facilities is an example of Elmer?
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..
In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.
I dunno...taking about going to Home Depot on this particular forum seems quite normal.
I gather that at some point in the late Stone Age, someone was upset by the convenience, though the chiseled comments or stone piles may be lost to the ages.
There is a hole bunch of typed comments up the stream about how bad convenience of electric drives actually is...
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 04:46:22 PM
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..
In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.
Oh no, not fringe at all–sorry that my point continues to be so unclear. :-(
The reception issue I used to have when I lived in the Bronx–within the boundaries of the nation's most populous city. I now live 40 miles farther out than that, but I have a 50-mile antenna, readily available on the market (along with longer-distance models). This would apply to huge numbers of quite typical households.
Another example we've talked about quite a bit is telephone vs. e-mail. And you could extend the same to any textual, online method of communication, such as social media, or this forum. I don't think I need to present to you any persuasive evidence that large numbers of people use these technologies, nor that large numbers of people have seen the effects of the missing tone and inflection information that these systems lack. Indeed, it's practically a defining aspect of our society, anymore...
So yeah, not fringe cases or obscure situations at all. Even the broken car window isn't obscure–it may not happen to everyone all of the time, but the possibility of it is inherent in any cases where motorized windows are used, which is almost always in modern conventional passenger cars.
Quote from: empirestate on June 08, 2018, 01:48:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2018, 04:46:22 PM
Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?
Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..
In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.
Oh no, not fringe at all–sorry that my point continues to be so unclear. :-(
The reception issue I used to have when I lived in the Bronx–within the boundaries of the nation's most populous city. I now live 40 miles farther out than that, but I have a 50-mile antenna, readily available on the market (along with longer-distance models). This would apply to huge numbers of quite typical households.
Another example we've talked about quite a bit is telephone vs. e-mail. And you could extend the same to any textual, online method of communication, such as social media, or this forum. I don't think I need to present to you any persuasive evidence that large numbers of people use these technologies, nor that large numbers of people have seen the effects of the missing tone and inflection information that these systems lack. Indeed, it's practically a defining aspect of our society, anymore...
So yeah, not fringe cases or obscure situations at all. Even the broken car window isn't obscure–it may not happen to everyone all of the time, but the possibility of it is inherent in any cases where motorized windows are used, which is almost always in modern conventional passenger cars.
50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone. And I can see whoever is in charge of broadcast towers being not too willing to put more and newer ones as cost/benefit ratio goes down as few people actually get affected.
Communications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business. For person-to-person communications.. In addition to free long distance calls on my cell, I can use Skype, Viber - and another half a dozen apps which offer voice, video, point-to-point or group calls.. But people often use text anyway. A emotions over text are not unheard of :)
Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time.. So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well?
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2018, 07:32:26 PM
There is a hole bunch of typed comments up the stream about how bad convenience of electric drives actually is...
Every example I saw above was for an item that could still not function whether it was electrically-activated or not. I've had broken window cranks before, and written up repair orders for sunroofs that wouldn't open on Ford Focuses which also had a crank (back in the 1990s). My point is, they're not entirely backwards steps, as implied by "technological regression", because both could suffer failures at some point. Besides, we're about 20-40 years away from putting that genie back in the bottle.
Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.
Theoretically, we would like one technological advancement to be free from any failures or disadvantages, but that's a joke without a punchline. In average situations...
1) unforeseen circumstances rear their ugly head
2) rushed to market before proper research and/or development
3) sub-optimal solution disguised as good idea pushed by management/government
4) undermined good/great/better idea by those with influence
5) masses resistant to "change" despite intense pleas for "better" because that means "more work"
6) people will complain about anything trivial, no matter how great the idea is
I think many of these concerns are #6. To the masses, the convenience surpassed the rare chance - literally about 1:1000 or less - it might fail.
I won't argue that digital TV was a technological step backwards, but in near-ideal conditions the picture is clearer with more definition than that of an old rabbit-ears antenna. But the reality is that it falters in most environment...as a cable-cutter, I can attest to that.
Call centers' ability to switch calls probably just vary on user and environment. I'm thinking that decades ago, a centralized call center took care of all concerns; now, there's a 1st-level call center in one city and a 2nd-tier in another state, an after-hours center in another continent, and other departments scattered around. That they can sort-of try to seamlessly integrate is more than they easily do before...of course, you wind up leaving a message at a dead-end desk for someone very specific which technology hasn't really figured out (she's on vacation in Schenectady).
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives.
No. You would have the few people who follow the speed limit at 45-50, and the majority who go 70-75 as usual, which creates a 25 mph speed differential.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 02:49:49 PMCall centers' ability to switch calls probably just vary on user and environment. I'm thinking that decades ago, a centralized call center took care of all concerns; now, there's a 1st-level call center in one city and a 2nd-tier in another state, an after-hours center in another continent, and other departments scattered around. That they can sort-of try to seamlessly integrate is more than they easily do before...of course, you wind up leaving a message at a dead-end desk for someone very specific which technology hasn't really figured out (she's on vacation in Schenectady).
Which may be another example of regression: Does it matter if there's someone there who can answer your call at 3 am if they can't give you the solution to your problem?
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 02:49:49 PM
Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.
Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car. Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual. Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.
I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).
I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair. One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 02:49:49 PM
Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.
Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car. Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual. Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.
I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).
I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair. One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.
I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 02:49:49 PMDo you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.
I have never worked as a service writer or a garage mechanic, but my impression is that long clutch life on manuals is a comparatively recent phenomenon, while most failures that require an automatic transmission to be opened are the result either of neglect or design error.
The last manual in the family was a 1981 Toyota Tercel. It was 13 years/about 90,000 miles old by the time my father sold it, and I think he had had to replace the clutch at least once, possibly twice. I have heard of clutch life of over 200,000 miles but only for vehicles at least a decade newer.
Meanwhile, in this family we have had multiple cars equipped with automatic transmissions, none of which have had to be opened for repair. These included a 1986 Nissan Maxima that was in family ownership from new to 22 years/230,000 miles: I changed the fluid regularly and also adjusted the throttle cable at about 60,000 miles. The oldest transmission currently in service in the family fleet has 24 years/160,000 miles.
Edit in light of Beltway's mention of one automatic sold in advance of needed repair: None of the automatics left family ownership as a result of pending transmission repairs. The Maxima had to go because of wheel arch rust. Two others were destroyed in accidents.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 02:49:49 PM
Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.
Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car. Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual. Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.
I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).
I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair. One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.
I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.
However, the EPA test for manuals prescribes shiftpoints that may not be the most efficient shiftpoints for that vehicle, and a driver may be able to do better than the EPA ratings once they've gotten used to the car.
So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2018, 02:51:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives.
No. You would have the few people who follow the speed limit at 45-50, and the majority who go 70-75 as usual, which creates a 25 mph speed differential.
So are you saying people still prefer more Elmerish solution of high speed, despite all disadvantages?
PS. If there was an actual goal of slowing down traffic, it would be done. Limit engine to 1.2 liter L4 for cars and 1.6 liter for SUVs, for example. Well, second amendment would need to be repealed before that...
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!
Hand raised. Slushboxes suck, IMHO.
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!
I drive a manual and would prefer one in my next car.
Quote from: formulanone on June 08, 2018, 03:18:51 PM
I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.
My 2016 Buick LaCrosse weighs over 3,900 pounds and gets 30 to 31 mpg on a 100% freeway trip tank of gasoline. Purely city driving obviously would be a lot less, but that still is a measure of efficiency and I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
Modern 6-speed automatics have stepped things up in efficiency over the older 4-speeds. Even then my 2003 LeSabre got over 30 mpg on the highway.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 08, 2018, 03:43:27 PM
The last manual in the family was a 1981 Toyota Tercel. It was 13 years/about 90,000 miles old by the time my father sold it, and I think he had had to replace the clutch at least once, possibly twice. I have heard of clutch life of over 200,000 miles but only for vehicles at least a decade newer.
I got a 1975 Chevy Nova at about 39,000 miles and drove it to about 305,000 miles. Manual transmission, I believe I had 4 clutch replacements over the life.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 08, 2018, 03:43:27 PM
Edit in light of Beltway's mention of one automatic sold in advance of needed repair: None of the automatics left family ownership as a result of pending transmission repairs. The Maxima had to go because of wheel arch rust. Two others were destroyed in accidents.
That was the oldest car I bought, a 4 1/2 year old 1994 LeSabre at about 67,000 miles. Drove to about 140,000 miles. Naturally the transmission wear issues could have happened before I got the car.
My last 2 cars, automatics, I bought new and that is about 355,000 miles total.
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster. I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!
Hi. This is my car. It has a manual. It is a unicorn.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/m70ihx5ge6qnouvgkwhs.jpg)
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster. I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.
It's called downshifting. That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower. Look it up.
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster. I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.
It's called downshifting. That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower. Look it up.
And that's what the 'L1', 'L2', 'L3', etc, selector settings are for on an automatic transmission, BTW.
:nod:
The biggest thing with downshifting and engine braking is to control the car on mountain downgrades. I also like that for city street driving.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 08, 2018, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster. I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.
It's called downshifting. That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower. Look it up.
And that's what the 'L1', 'L2', 'L3', etc, selector settings are for on an automatic transmission, BTW.
:nod:
The biggest thing with downshifting and engine braking is to control the car on mountain downgrades. I also like that for city street driving.
Mike
I get a few cruddy rental cars with P-R-N-D-L and that's it, not even an overdrive-OFF selector...I'm always unclear if I'm going from 5th to 1st down a steep hill, but I'm guessing the transmission control module is smart enough to prevent drastic over-revving of the engine. Most do seem to have some up/down functionality, in varying methods of operation and shift reaction times. I'll admit that some do a better job than others at programmed shift logic, making it easier and even a little engaging by letting the drive make their own choices. And other 'boxes that make selecting ranges a chore and making gear selecting a bit of a chore. There's long-throw trucks which make this obnoxious for manual gear selection. (But don't get me started on CVTs!)
My point was more of that the automatic was a few step backwards for the sake of convenience, but it took a good while to make it more reliable, more seamless in operation, a little less wasteful, get more out of the engine, and such. Technological regression sometimes catches up and surpasses the previous technology, but there's always going to be those who have a personal preference. Such as the tactile feel of paper maps...the gentle printed halftones, slight wear on the edges, the ability for mark-up, the varying font weights signifying importance, versus looking at squiggles, lines, and numbers on a computer.
[/also raises manual transmission hand]
I'm 50 and I never learned how to drive a stick shift.
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 03:59:49 PMSo... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmission rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
(Flips hand from side to side)
Manuals are more forgiving of abuse, but the tradeoff is that periodic replacement of an expensive wear item (the clutch) is necessary. In comparison, regular replacement of fluid in an automatic transmission is much easier and cheaper (even with $10/quart boutique synthetic ATF) and is adequate for indefinitely long life. In terms of cost and reliability, not just convenience in city traffic, automatics can be a win overall.
I suspect the problem is that car owners, as a group, tend to be very neglectful of any routine maintenance other than engine oil and filter changes, though I have not been able to find any freely available statistical data for owner compliance with manufacturers' recommended maintenance schedules that could be used to confirm this intuition.
Three transmission rebuilds in fifteen years strikes me as bad luck and possibly the result of a combination of design problems and buying used cars that were neglected or abused by their previous owners.
Quote from: jon daly on June 08, 2018, 08:46:40 PM
I'm 50 and I never learned how to drive a stick shift.
Same here.
I also have a manual and plan to switch only if the car companies force me to.
With regards to downshifting, on an automatic, you're telling the computer that you want to downshift, but the computer makes the final decision. With a manual, you do. Automatics certainly allow things like shifting with both of your hands busy (like while changing lanes, which many people do to quickly accelerate to the speed of traffic from a near stop) and sitting in stop and go traffic without holding a clutch down. Personally, I'd rather not be somewhere where I needed either on a regular basis, which is why I hate tourist season here.
Finally, I appreciate how I'm reading a thread referencing "Elmer" after reading the glue thread.
I've driven a stick, but not very often, and would not want to drive one today. Driving should be made easier, not more difficult, and in my opinion having to shift when the car could do that for you is an unnecessary task. Besides, I prefer to have my hand free and since I've discovered roadgeek photography, even more so.
My Saturn Vue has an "automatic manual" in that you can actually put it in a gear that allows you to push a button and shift up and down, although the car will automatically upshift if you are in danger of red-lining the engine. This vehicle is specifically listed as one that's allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because of this feature.
As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 08, 2018, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
It's not about the mpg. It's about the control. I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).
That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster. I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.
It's called downshifting. That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower. Look it up.
Yes, I know what downshifting is. Every automatic I have had has the ability to shift manually. I regularly downshift on long downhill grades.
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone.
Right, but you weren't referring to the physical fringe, you were talking about the fringes of society, of common experience. Many people live near me, all within the same 50 miles of the city–and many more live farther out. So, the situation is something that can be experienced by a broad segment of the population; and indeed, when I bring this up in conversation, people immediately understand what I'm referring to and can immediately relate. By contrast, if I were to tell a story of having to fashion a new stone axe to replace one I'd broken, this isn't something most people would find familiar. And that's true whether I told the story in Times Square, or downtown Poughkeepsie.
QuoteCommunications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business.
That's correct, phone transfers mostly occur in business situations–I even directly mentioned customer service, if I recall correctly. So, again, not a fringe occurrence, but something many people will have experienced.
QuoteOr putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time.. So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well?
I don't think so, as the selection of a speed limit is not a technological system.
I once rented a Cadillac that had paddle shifters on the steering wheel for the Tap-Shift/Auto-Stick feature.
Quote from: empirestate on June 09, 2018, 01:34:25 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 08, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone.
Right, but you weren't referring to the physical fringe, you were talking about the fringes of society, of common experience. Many people live near me, all within the same 50 miles of the city–and many more live farther out. So, the situation is something that can be experienced by a broad segment of the population; and indeed, when I bring this up in conversation, people immediately understand what I'm referring to and can immediately relate. By contrast, if I were to tell a story of having to fashion a new stone axe to replace one I'd broken, this isn't something most people would find familiar. And that's true whether I told the story in Times Square, or downtown Poughkeepsie.
QuoteCommunications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business.
That's correct, phone transfers mostly occur in business situations–I even directly mentioned customer service, if I recall correctly. So, again, not a fringe occurrence, but something many people will have experienced.
QuoteOr putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time.. So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well?
I don't think so, as the selection of a speed limit is not a technological system.
TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?
Phone: I think we're more or less converging... Business developed alternative communication protocols - e.g. e-mail, where unneeded part (emotions) are removed; and personal communication developed a different set of protocols with new features (like video) where unneeded features (transfers) are not used. Those stuck to old protocols (plain phone, snail mail) get service degradation due to reduced demand for those systems.
Speed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2018, 10:06:29 PM
As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.
I do that all the time in snowy weather around here, too. It's amazing how easy it is to stop and hold the car when one is only fighting the momentum of the car and not the tractive power of its engine. So much so that I'll often do that in clear, dry weather, too.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 09, 2018, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2018, 10:06:29 PM
As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.
I do that all the time in snowy weather around here, too. It's amazing how easy it is to stop and hold the car when one is only fighting the momentum of the car and not the tractive power of its engine. So much so that I'll often do that in clear, dry weather, too. Mike
Cars I had with manual transmission, with any brake application that might lock up the wheels, I would depress the clutch pedal to disengage the engine from the drive train. The only problem is that with the stress of a sudden emergency stop I forgot to do that a few times and didn't realize it until I heard the engine chugging to a stop.
Quote from: kalvado on June 09, 2018, 08:40:51 AM
TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?
No, the problem–as far as it pertains to Elmer–is nothing more than that digital broadcast signals are received less well than analog signals, all else being equal (including, we'd presume, the number of people trying to receive them).
QuoteSpeed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...
But you didn't say "speed", you said the NMSL. As far as I'm aware, that was enacted for purely non-technological reasons.
Quote from: empirestate on June 11, 2018, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 09, 2018, 08:40:51 AM
TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?
No, the problem–as far as it pertains to Elmer–is nothing more than that digital broadcast signals are received less well than analog signals, all else being equal (including, we'd presume, the number of people trying to receive them).
QuoteSpeed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...
But you didn't say "speed", you said the NMSL. As far as I'm aware, that was enacted for purely non-technological reasons.
TV- I don't believe this is quite the case. Frankly speaking, comparison of same location same time is the best approach - and I doubt we have that, people tend to move around...
Building up, more EM noise (more electronics, cell phones, etc) can affect background quite a bit. My understanding always was that digital gives up when analog has minimum reception below acceptable for many people. I guess I have to lookup dbm-dbu numbers.
NMSL could be introduced for different reason, but speed control for safety reasons is a thing. I am suggesting that you consider a new NMSL as a safety feature - and setting up mandated vehicle performance parameters to actually enforce those speeds. Once you can imagine that, what do you think would be more elmerish: actually implementing that for significant benefit to everyone (safety, fuel consumption) - but at a cost (time) to everyone; or increasing speed limit to - and above- current values? Only unfortunate few who crash would pay the price..
Quote from: kalvado on June 11, 2018, 05:39:07 PM
TV- I don't believe this is quite the case. Frankly speaking, comparison of same location same time is the best approach - and I doubt we have that, people tend to move around...
To get around that, we can compare the day that the digital switchover happened to the day before. I'm not going to, but we can.
QuoteNMSL could be introduced for different reason, but speed control for safety reasons is a thing. I am suggesting that you consider a new NMSL as a safety feature - and setting up mandated vehicle performance parameters to actually enforce those speeds. Once you can imagine that, what do you think would be more elmerish: actually implementing that for significant benefit to everyone (safety, fuel consumption) - but at a cost (time) to everyone; or increasing speed limit to - and above- current values? Only unfortunate few who crash would pay the price..
I'll be honest with you, my conviction that NMSL is not an example of Elmer is exceedingly weak; so, if you have the idea that it is indeed an example, that's perfectly well. I have no dog in that fight.
And generally speaking, my motivation to pursue the tangential topics that have arisen from my inquiry is rather less than yours; so, I'll probably bow out from the most part, now.
Personally, I'd consider NMSL to be a regression from the more reasonable speed limits we had before then. In fact, NMSL created our current culture of speeding and speeding tickets. Before then, people actually obeyed the limit, and enforcement was much less too.
If you want to reduce crashes, why not raise the standards for getting a licence to what exists in Europe, and drop the whole "speed kills" paradigm that has been debunked again and again?
But then, this is a matter of law, not technology.
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2018, 08:31:08 PM
Personally, I'd consider NMSL to be a regression from the more reasonable speed limits we had before then. In fact, NMSL created our current culture of speeding and speeding tickets. Before then, people actually obeyed the limit, and enforcement was much less too.
If you want to reduce crashes, why not raise the standards for getting a licence to what exists in Europe, and drop the whole "speed kills" paradigm that has been debunked again and again?
But then, this is a matter of law, not technology.
I am bringing NMSL here as a possible example of different paradigm of development. And yes, this is opposite to what I would call "realistic speed limit" paradigm with the objective of getting most of existing infrastructure.
Since those are two opposite directions for things to develop, @empirestate must consider one more elemrish and the other anti-elmerish.
Following the basic logic, something that benefits most - but hurts a minority is Elmerish, and the choice is fairly obvious. But apparently being on a winning side prevents that recognition.
Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 01:18:20 AM
Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)
Slow down, slow down :)
If you want to discuss the overall trend, you cannot just leave a big example aside. It can be part of overall trend, and your personal dislike of countereAnd actually I should have used words "vision ZERO" somewhere in discussion as an example of progressive-regressive approach. And this is an example where everyone on this forum is likely to have a pretty strong opinion - so you cannot just shy away from it :pan:
But overall I suspect this is more about personal preferences, to be honest - as in "best approach is the one I used when I was young. Older is so outdated, and newer - who needs those bells and whistles?"
Quote from: kalvado on June 12, 2018, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 01:18:20 AM
Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)
Slow down, slow down :)
If you want to discuss the overall trend, you cannot just leave a big example aside. It can be part of overall trend, and your personal dislike of countere
Exactly. Totally happy to acknowledge speed as an example, if you observe it to be such. (And I'll have you know, I'm actually super fond of countere.) ;-)
QuoteAnd actually I should have used words "vision ZERO" somewhere in discussion as an example of progressive-regressive approach. And this is an example where everyone on this forum is likely to have a pretty strong opinion - so you cannot just shy away from it :pan:
Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded. :sombrero:
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded. :sombrero:
Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously, though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.
As for me, I am thoroughly agnostic on TV issue as I don't even have a TV; not willing to pay twice the ticket price for supersonic flight to save 3-4 hours; and think that digital phone is better than analog - even if that results in occasional call drop (as if that never happen with analog) or voice menu (and i HATE those). So hard to discuss when we don't have a point where we both have vested interest..
Quote from: kalvado on June 12, 2018, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded. :sombrero:
Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously, though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.
Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York. ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on June 13, 2018, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 12, 2018, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded. :sombrero:
Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously, though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.
Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York. ;-)
Other than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?
Quote from: kalvado on June 12, 2018, 11:57:36 AMQuote from: empirestate on June 12, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded. :sombrero:
C'mon, this is not fun!
Seriously, though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. Then that would be a fun discussion.
As for me, I am thoroughly agnostic on TV issue as I don't even have a TV; not willing to pay twice the ticket price for supersonic flight to save 3-4 hours; and think that digital phone is better than analog - even if that results in occasional call drop (as if that never happens with analog) or voice menu (and I HATE those). So hard to discuss when we don't have a point where we both have vested interest..
TBH, I am happy to let discussions die down when they whittle down to two parties and it is clear neither wishes to be persuaded to the other's position. It keeps the thread in question from popping back every time I check "New replies to your posts." It also keeps the hairsplitting and special pleading to a minimum.
Quote from: empirestate on June 13, 2018, 10:04:46 AMWell, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York. ;-)
I was under the impression you and Kalvado were on the same side in that discussion.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 13, 2018, 10:22:40 AMOther than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?
The relevant discussion is here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0
Empirestate was in favor of keeping sequential exit numbering and eventually posted links to MTR threads from the early noughties in which he made it clear he was opposed to mileage-based exit numbering because his "home" exit on the Thruway, Exit 50 (Rochester), would change to something less elegant. I gave up on the thread at that point.
As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the
MUTCD. NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them. If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA. Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.
I have since moved on to looking at the history of exit numbering in broader terms. One argument against distance-based exit numbering that received little play in the thread is that when a projected through road exists only in short disconnected segments, it is harder to settle on a baseline for mileage-based exit numbering than it is on a count of access points to be used for sequential numbering. This is why many states that have had sequential exit numbering in the past (Colorado, Georgia) have moved to mileage-based numbering only comparatively recently (very recently in the case of Georgia), while others that had mileage-based from the start (like Arizona) waited until fairly late in their primary Interstate construction before they started posting exit numbers at all. In Arizona's case, exit numbers east of Phoenix do not correspond to actual mileage because the route of I-10 through downtown Phoenix and the western suburbs is different from the one projected in 1970. In the early noughties, Utah changed mileage-based exit numbers on I-15 to correct a similar milepointing issue.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 13, 2018, 10:22:40 AM
Other than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?
I'll refer you to the existing epic thread on that subject for my answer (linked below). :-)
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
TBH, I am happy to let discussions die down when they whittle down to two parties and it is clear neither wishes to be persuaded to the other's position. It keeps the thread in question from popping back every time I check "New replies to your posts." It also keeps the hairsplitting and special pleading to a minimum.
Yep–no dog in that fight, as I say. I'm persuaded that Elmer is a thing, and as for the side topics like whether x and y are specific examples of it, or what the reasons are for it, I either have no strong conviction, or no particular interest. Others may pursue those topics, of course, but if I'm one of only two people left talking about it, and I'm not interested myself, I think that means it's officially dead. (As we can see, I'm literally less motivated to discuss it than I am to discuss whether to discuss it.) :spin:
QuoteQuote from: empirestate on June 13, 2018, 10:04:46 AMWell, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York. ;-)
I was under the impression you and Kalvado were on the same side in that discussion.
That's my recollection as well.
QuoteEmpirestate was in favor of keeping sequential exit numbering and eventually posted links to MTR threads from the early noughties in which he made it clear he was opposed to mileage-based exit numbering because his "home" exit on the Thruway, Exit 50 (Rochester), would change to something less elegant. I gave up on the thread at that point.
Hmm, check your sources there–you may have been sold some fake news. My home exit was never Exit 50, nor is that the number for any of the Rochester. And if I had a frivolous reason for opposing the change, it was memorizability, not elegance. However, you do sum up my position well to say that my reasons against renumbering were frivolous, and yet I still found them more persuasive than the reasons in favor. That may actually be the best way it's been stated thus far! :cheers:
Quote from: empirestate on June 13, 2018, 01:19:48 PM
Hmm, check your sources there–you may have been sold some fake news. My home exit was never Exit 50, nor is that the number for any of the Rochester. And if I had a frivolous reason for opposing the change, it was memorizability, not elegance. However, you do sum up my position well to say that my reasons against renumbering were frivolous, and yet I still found them more persuasive than the reasons in favor. That may actually be the best way it's been stated thus far! :cheers:
I was going by what you said here:
Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 10:51:54 PMBut yeah, I'm hoping it's about time to wind down, now. And to be honest, it's probably been a little while now since I reached the point of purposely not changing my mind under any circumstances, just because. :sombrero:
EDIT: And just in case anyone's still holding out hope about swaying me, I've been clinging fast to my opinion for at least 18 years...and that means I'm now 18 years older and stodgier.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date)
And yes, I was misremembering. The Thruway exit for I-490 near Rochester is Exit 45 and that was the number you mentioned in the following snippet from a post written on 2000-03-28:
Quote from: EmpirestateMy reasons for preferring sequential are purely selfish ones. I fully appreciate the value of mileage-based, and have used it myself to calculate distances and all that, but the simple fact is that I like sequential numbering because I've grown up with it for so long. My Thruway exit has been 45 for all my life and it would be weird for me if it changed. Also I'm the type of guy who likes to have things in order...it bothers me on some level to have a list of things with numbers left out. (Plus mileage-based exits are harder to memorize.) It's like metrics: the simplicity and logic of it are not lost on me, but metrics is just so damn bland and uninspiring. The Imperial system, and the various other quirky measurements we use, just have more balls.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date/misc.transport.road/P9q2PGnU7RI/wEZ2c58KJCMJ
I make no judgment as to whether your reasons for opposing mileage-based exit numbering are frivolous or not. They are yours, so the only person they really need to make sense to is you. I would just have liked to have known much earlier in this discussion that you were not really persuadable on this issue. This would have made it easy to disengage sooner and shift my focus to other aspects of the exit numbering problem.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD. NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them. If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA. Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.
Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2018, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD. NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them. If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA. Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.
Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?
You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...
Quote from: kalvado on June 13, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2018, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD. NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them. If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA. Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.
Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?
You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...
Exit numbering a non-issue? The Cuomo signs are easy to ignore. It's a right royal pain in the ass to tell where you are with that half-assed sequential exit numbering garbage.
Good for them. Yes, the exit numbering should have been fixed sooner, but it is an expensive project. The Cuomo signs should never have happened and they deserved to be made an example of. The purpose of signs isn't to promote name recognition for elected officials.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 13, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2018, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD. NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them. If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA. Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.
Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?
You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...
Exit numbering a non-issue? The Cuomo signs are easy to ignore. It's a right royal pain in the ass to tell where you are with that half-assed sequential exit numbering garbage.
Relax, take a deep breath, enjoy the weather.. Slow down to speed limit+20 and enjoy beautiful sequential numbers..
IN A DEDICATED THREAD!!!!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for mileage-based exit numbers. But converting exit numbers statewide is a big expense, so it makes sense that they haven't forced the issue yet.
The Cuomo signs, on the other hand...
You can't even form an argument in favor of those things. They were substandard, closely spaced, and ugly as heck, not to mention distracting, popping up like weeds in places they didn't belong, and wrongfully promoting an elected official. No question that the Cuomo signs are more blatantly substandard than the exit numbers, as much as I hate both.
Quote from: jon daly on June 01, 2018, 10:54:45 AM
Were there other enviro concerns beyond noise pollution wrt SST?
I'm late to this thread but since it doesn't appear anyone has addressed this - yes.
Another major issue with Supersonic planes is that, in order to get the air resistance down low enough to make their efficiency reasonable, they fly in the stratosphere - higher than ordinary subsonic commercial airliners. But, this also means they are spewing emissions into the stratosphere, some contents of which have potentially negative consequences for stratospheric ozone.
It should be noted that it was not long after the Concorde debuted that the whole "we're destroying the ozone layer" environmental crisis peaked in public concern. This is another obstacle to commercial supersonic flight.
Theoretically, this and the sonic boom issue could both be solved using ballistic flight rather than powered supersonic flight.
Of course, launching ballistic flight in a way that keeps the g-forces low enough to not make all the people on board hurl would be a challenge. As would then figuring out how to enable the resulting projectile to resume powered flight once it neared its destination. But theoretically it is doable.
Realistically though, the biggest reason you don't see much effort put towards this or powered supersonic commercial planes is simply that there is not sufficient benefit to justify the cost. Conventional jets can fly a good chunk of the way around the world in half a day and for most people this is fast enough. And for the elite who want premium service, we have moved towards fancier first class accommodations in lieu of faster but less comfortable accommodations. I've been inside of a Concorde when they had one on exhibit at the Intrepid museum. It's real cramped in there. If I had to chose between spending a couple thousand dollars to fly to London in two hours sitting on that or spending a couple thousand dollars to fly to London in six hours in a bed where I can comfortably sleep for the whole trip... I'd take the bed.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 13, 2018, 07:39:06 PM
Theoretically, this and the sonic boom issue could both be solved using ballistic flight rather than powered supersonic flight.
What do you mean by ballistic flight? As like with an ICBM that leaves the atmosphere for most of the flight? They are accelerated to about 15,000 mph, which takes a lot of rocket fuel, and have an apogee of about 150 miles above the Earth. When the SST reentered the atmosphere it would be like a giant space shuttle, built of exotic materials, having extensive heat shielding, and it would produce large sonic booms on reentry.
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2018, 08:04:16 PM
What do you mean by ballistic flight? As like with an ICBM that leaves the atmosphere for most of the flight?
The term "ballistic", by definition, means you are dealing with a projectile so yes, that is exactly what I mean. Although it would not go as high for shorter trips. When you throw a ball, that is also an example of ballistic flight.
Quoteand it would produce large sonic booms on reentry
Right but so long as it reenters over the ocean this is not a problem, so you can do this to any destination near the coast regardless of where you're coming from. The Concorde was limited to NYC-London and NYC-Paris flights because these were mostly over the ocean and it could not fly supersonic over land. A ballistic craft would be able to be shot from New York to Tokyo, and would not need to (would not be able to) slow down as it crossed the North American continent. It'd be able to do the reverse trip as well, but would need to reenter offshore over the Atlantic and then turn around to head into New York once it resumed powered flight.
The sonic boom problem would still rear its head for inland destinations, but at least it'd be able to supersonically pass over continents so long as it is not landing or taking off from the middle of them.
And yes, there are significant technical challenges involved in the re-entry as well. But as your comparison to the space shuttle shows, we've solved these challenges before. It is absolutely possible.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 13, 2018, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2018, 08:04:16 PM
What do you mean by ballistic flight? As like with an ICBM that leaves the atmosphere for most of the flight?
The term "ballistic", by definition, means you are dealing with a projectile so yes, that is exactly what I mean. Although it would not go as high for shorter trips. When you throw a ball, that is also an example of ballistic flight.
If the maximum height is 275 km, you're only in the air for 8 minutes. Definitely not enough time.
(edited post to change numbers slightly)
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 05:41:07 PM
The Cuomo signs, on the other hand...
You can't even form an argument in favor of those things.
Sure you can. The state was promoting economic activity through tourism on property it owns.
QuoteThey were substandard, closely spaced, and ugly as heck, not to mention distracting, popping up like weeds in places they didn't belong...
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PMThe Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.
Quoteand wrongfully promoting an elected official.
Just about every state sticks its governor's name on the welcome signs at the state line. And some states put the governor's name on construction funding signs. Was Cuomo's name on every sign? I don't remember seeing it.
Good to see more SST discussion.
I was on I-287 a month and a half ago and don't recall the Cuomo signs. They don't seem worse than the signs on the RI interstates saying that all the bridgework is on schedule.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 13, 2018, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2018, 08:04:16 PM
What do you mean by ballistic flight? As like with an ICBM that leaves the atmosphere for most of the flight?
The term "ballistic", by definition, means you are dealing with a projectile so yes, that is exactly what I mean. Although it would not go as high for shorter trips. When you throw a ball, that is also an example of ballistic flight.
So only 8,000 mph or so? That would still take enormously more energy required than for current airliners.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 13, 2018, 08:29:58 PM
Quoteand it would produce large sonic booms on reentry
Right but so long as it reenters over the ocean this is not a problem, so you can do this to any destination near the coast regardless of where you're coming from. The Concorde was limited to NYC-London and NYC-Paris flights because these were mostly over the ocean and it could not fly supersonic over land. A ballistic craft would be able to be shot from New York to Tokyo, and would not need to (would not be able to) slow down as it crossed the North American continent. It'd be able to do the reverse trip as well, but would need to reenter offshore over the Atlantic and then turn around to head into New York once it resumed powered flight.
The sonic boom problem would still rear its head for inland destinations, but at least it'd be able to supersonically pass over continents so long as it is not landing or taking off from the middle of them.
And yes, there are significant technical challenges involved in the re-entry as well. But as your comparison to the space shuttle shows, we've solved these challenges before. It is absolutely possible.
The space shuttle was never more than an experimental vehicle. Much smaller than a 250+ seat airliner. Still cost a billion dollars per flight in the later years.
Not being able to serve places like Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, etc. is part of why Concorde failed economically. Needing connect to the coast would slow down travel considerably. That flight to Tokyo would impact northern Japan upon reentry (check the great circle route), plus it would be about the length and height and speed of an ICBM flight.
The SST was too short range. If they could have served trans-Pacific routes, say Los Angeles to Tokyo in 3 hours rather than 11.5, they would have been more competitive.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 01:50:18 PM
I make no judgment as to whether your reasons for opposing mileage-based exit numbering are frivolous or not. They are yours, so the only person they really need to make sense to is you. I would just have liked to have known much earlier in this discussion that you were not really persuadable on this issue. This would have made it easy to disengage sooner and shift my focus to other aspects of the exit numbering problem.
Sorry to have left you hanging so long! I guess I would have thought it was clear by then that I was unpersuadable, and didn't realize I should have explicitly stated as much. Although I suppose that's really what I was doing with my little sombrero-hatted remark: trying to make perfectly clear that my mind was already made up. But the sombrero-less truth remains that I'm not really being unpersuadable for stubbornness' sake. Had any new information been presented that suggested a reason to convert, I'd have remained open to persuasion. But as I recall, by that time it was just all of the same arguments in favor of conversion, all of which I already knew about, and none of which persuaded me, so that's why I made the quip about intentionally refusing to be persuaded.
Quote from: kalvado on June 13, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
Relax, take a deep breath, enjoy the weather.. Slow down to speed limit+20 and enjoy beautiful sequential numbers..
IN A DEDICATED THREAD!!!!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0
Yes; no need to re-discuss that topic here! Only continue to discuss whether I am persuadable on various topics, please–just not the topics themselves. :-D :rolleyes:
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
The SST was too short range. If they could have served trans-Pacific routes, say Los Angeles to Tokyo in 3 hours rather than 11.5, they would have been more competitive.
The Boeing 2707 design was considerably longer in range than the Concorde, but still not long enough to cross the Pacific non-stop. Back then there wasn't enough travel demand on those routes in any case to support supersonic travel.
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2018, 06:15:02 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
The SST was too short range. If they could have served trans-Pacific routes, say Los Angeles to Tokyo in 3 hours rather than 11.5, they would have been more competitive.
The Boeing 2707 design was considerably longer in range than the Concorde, but still not long enough to cross the Pacific non-stop. Back then there wasn't enough travel demand on those routes in any case to support supersonic travel.
But would supersonic air travel have spurred demand? I don't think there was much demand for travel from the continental US to Hawaii prior to the Boeing 707.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2018, 08:53:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 05:41:07 PM
The Cuomo signs, on the other hand...
You can't even form an argument in favor of those things.
Sure you can. The state was promoting economic activity through tourism on property it owns.
Theoretically. The signs themselves never had a verifiable chance of impacting economic activity, or boosting tourism. So that argument defends Cuomo, but not the actual signs.
Quote
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
If this is supposed to be a reference to something, I don't get it.
QuoteWas Cuomo's name on every sign? I don't remember seeing it.
I don't remember either, but the fact that everyone has been calling them "Cuomo signs" speaks for itself... and sets these signs apart from a construction funding or state welcome sign.
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2018, 02:20:18 AMQuote from: kalvado on June 13, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
Relax, take a deep breath, enjoy the weather.. Slow down to speed limit+20 and enjoy beautiful sequential numbers..
IN A DEDICATED THREAD!!!!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0
Yes; no need to re-discuss that topic here! Only continue to discuss whether I am persuadable on various topics, please–just not the topics themselves. :-D :rolleyes:
I thought about suggesting mileage-based exit numbers were an example of Elmer. Then I decided to put the pointed stick away.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 14, 2018, 09:09:28 AM
I thought about suggesting mileage-based exit numbers were an example of Elmer. Then I decided to put the pointed stick away.
I thought of that, too, but then I couldn't figure out what problem they solve that was better solved by sequential (at least, not as a technological solution). What's the regression in that case?
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2018, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 14, 2018, 09:09:28 AM
I thought about suggesting mileage-based exit numbers were an example of Elmer. Then I decided to put the pointed stick away.
I thought of that, too, but then I couldn't figure out what problem they solve that was better solved by sequential (at least, not as a technological solution). What's the regression in that case?
I've been following this discussion only loosely, but I might note that GPS technology has made mileage-based exits less valuable to the average motorist than they were 50 years ago.
Quote from: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2018, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 14, 2018, 09:09:28 AM
I thought about suggesting mileage-based exit numbers were an example of Elmer. Then I decided to put the pointed stick away.
I thought of that, too, but then I couldn't figure out what problem they solve that was better solved by sequential (at least, not as a technological solution). What's the regression in that case?
I've been following this discussion only loosely, but I might note that GPS technology has made mileage-based exits less valuable to the average motorist than they were 50 years ago.
I still think that we may see at least some of road signage replaced/supplemented by wireless transmitters communicating with receivers in cars. No more font controversy, signs unreadable in weather or darkness, no more complains about aesthetic issues of overhead BGS on cape cod, and a choice of sequential or km-based exit number with a press of a button.
But definitely a lot of complains about Elmer from someone insisting on driving an old but reliable Ford T as visual signs slowly get more and more neglected...
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2018, 10:39:43 AM
What's the regression in that case?
Not knowing how many total exits there are in that state, I guess. I can't think of another one.
Quote from: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 08:36:19 AMQuote
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
If this is supposed to be a reference to something, I don't get it.
Yes. I quoted him concerning how easy it is to ignore the signs if you want. See below.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PMThe Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2018, 12:15:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 08:36:19 AMQuote
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
If this is supposed to be a reference to something, I don't get it.
Yes. I quoted him concerning how easy it is to ignore the signs if you want. See below.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PMThe Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.
OK, lets see how good you're at that...
PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE!!I SAID PLEASE IGNORE IT! FOR REAL!
Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2018, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2018, 12:15:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 08:36:19 AMQuote
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
If this is supposed to be a reference to something, I don't get it.
Yes. I quoted him concerning how easy it is to ignore the signs if you want. See below.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PMThe Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.
OK, lets see how good you're at that...
PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE!!
I SAID PLEASE IGNORE IT! FOR REAL!
Experience ✪ Explore ✪ Enjoy--------------------------------------
Alanland--------------------------------------
Download the A:\Goat.app.exe--------------------------------------
❤ ♛ ⓄAttractions History Karo Syrup
Quote from: formulanone on June 14, 2018, 12:37:23 PM
Experience ✪ Explore ✪ Enjoy
--------------------------------------
Alanland
--------------------------------------
Download the A:\Goat.app.exe
--------------------------------------
❤ ♛ Ⓞ
Attractions History Karo Syrup
Well played!
This whole thread is now officially a regression.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 07:24:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2018, 06:15:02 AM
The Boeing 2707 design was considerably longer in range than the Concorde, but still not long enough to cross the Pacific non-stop. Back then there wasn't enough travel demand on those routes in any case to support supersonic travel.
But would supersonic air travel have spurred demand? I don't think there was much demand for travel from the continental US to Hawaii prior to the Boeing 707.
There were PanAm Clippers back in the 1930s between the continental U.S. and Hawaii, when airlines cruised at about 200 mph, and by the nature of the route only non-stops were feasible. Be about a 12-hour flight. Constellations and DC-7s after the war cruised at about 330 mph or so, that would be about 7 hours flight. Not too bad. I'm not sure how much the B-707 changed the demand, but the B-747 certainly did.
A B-2707 flight between the U.S. and the Far East would still need a refueling stop, and that would cause a major drop in average trip speed.
I wonder if a feasible detailed design was ever worked up for an SST that could cross the Pacific non-stop.
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2018, 02:09:54 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 07:24:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2018, 06:15:02 AM
The Boeing 2707 design was considerably longer in range than the Concorde, but still not long enough to cross the Pacific non-stop. Back then there wasn't enough travel demand on those routes in any case to support supersonic travel.
But would supersonic air travel have spurred demand? I don't think there was much demand for travel from the continental US to Hawaii prior to the Boeing 707.
There were PanAm Clippers back in the 1930s between the continental U.S. and Hawaii, when airlines cruised at about 200 mph, and by the nature of the route only non-stops were feasible. Be about a 12-hour flight. Constellations and DC-7s after the war cruised at about 330 mph or so, that would be about 7 hours flight. Not too bad. I'm not sure how much the B-707 changed the demand, but the B-747 certainly did.
A B-2707 flight between the U.S. and the Far East would still need a refueling stop, and that would cause a major drop in average trip speed.
I wonder if a feasible detailed design was ever worked up for an SST that could cross the Pacific non-stop.
The 707 was the first successful jet airliner. The Comet flew first, but had a sad series of accidents and was taken out of service. The 707 introduced higher speed and longer range flights at lower prices.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2018, 12:15:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 08:36:19 AMQuote
Take it away, Mr. Gorte.
If this is supposed to be a reference to something, I don't get it.
Yes. I quoted him concerning how easy it is to ignore the signs if you want. See below.
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 04:42:16 PMThe Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.
I didn't know Brandon was Mr. Gorte. Had I known, your entire post would have made a bit more sense!
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2018, 01:38:56 PM
This whole thread is now officially a regression.
Not an unexpected regression; it tends to happen to a lot of threads after they reach a certain length (coincidentally, this is reply #200! :-P).
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 03:41:33 PM
The 707 was the first successful jet airliner. The Comet flew first, but had a sad series of accidents and was taken out of service. The 707 introduced higher speed and longer range flights at lower prices.
The de Havilland Comet was restored to service and some still flew in the 1990s, but only 116 were built.
There were 865 B-707 built and service began in 1957, and the DC-8 had very similar size and performance and entered service one year after the B-707 and 556 were built. Economically they were very successful, and economically the Comet was unsuccessful.
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
The SST was too short range. If they could have served trans-Pacific routes, say Los Angeles to Tokyo in 3 hours rather than 11.5, they would have been more competitive.
Small correction: Tokyo to LA was 9-9.5 hours when I flew that route in 2007. I'm not sure how LA to Tokyo compares, or if the blocked flight time changes throughout the year.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
The SST was too short range. If they could have served trans-Pacific routes, say Los Angeles to Tokyo in 3 hours rather than 11.5, they would have been more competitive.
Small correction: Tokyo to LA was 9-9.5 hours when I flew that route in 2007. I'm not sure how LA to Tokyo compares, or if the blocked flight time changes throughout the year.
I used this web site:
https://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-los-angeles/to-tokyo/
Flying east is faster because you're going with the jet stream.
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 04:46:16 PM
Small correction: Tokyo to LA was 9-9.5 hours when I flew that route in 2007. I'm not sure how LA to Tokyo compares, or if the blocked flight time changes throughout the year.
I used this web site:
https://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-los-angeles/to-tokyo/
Flying east is faster because you're going with the jet stream.
The path and altitude of the jet streams vary considerably over a year.
At some times that route would not see any jet stream impact.
Just to offer another TV-related example I've noticed: Especially for cord-cutters using app-based systems, but also for traditional cable service, just the simple act of turning on the TV and beginning to view its content has become much slower and more complicated.
Old way: Pull out the knob and wait a few seconds. In some cases, set one or two nearby dials to the correct channel; but even without this step, some programming will be displayed without any further action.
New way: Turn on TV set. Turn on smart TV device. Navigate through menu to desired app. Navigate through app menu to find desired programming. Note that no programming is displayed until this last step is completed.
Quote from: empirestate on June 20, 2018, 03:46:32 PM
Just to offer another TV-related example I've noticed: Especially for cord-cutters using app-based systems, but also for traditional cable service, just the simple act of turning on the TV and beginning to view its content has become much slower and more complicated.
Old way: Pull out the knob and wait a few seconds. In some cases, set one or two nearby dials to the correct channel; but even without this step, some programming will be displayed without any further action.
New way: Turn on TV set. Turn on smart TV device. Navigate through menu to desired app. Navigate through app menu to find desired programming. Note that no programming is displayed until this last step is completed.
Well.. If kids are turning TV on in the morning, maybe its a good thing they don't know what their parents were watching so late..
Couple of observations:
* Many streaming platforms, e.g. Netflix, automatically cue up the next episode of a TV series once you come to the end of the current episode, so this is an improvement over having to wait for broadcast of the next episode as well as a mitigant for the additional control navigation required before you can begin watching.
* Arguably, having to proactively choose what one watches is feature, not bug, since it establishes behavioral barriers to mindless TV watching.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 20, 2018, 04:17:52 PM
Couple of observations:
* Many streaming platforms, e.g. Netflix, automatically cue up the next episode of a TV series once you come to the end of the current episode, so this is an improvement over having to wait for broadcast of the next episode as well as a mitigant for the additional control navigation required before you can begin watching.
* Arguably, having to proactively choose what one watches is feature, not bug, since it establishes behavioral barriers to mindless TV watching.
A round of applause for your last point! That is actually the biggest reason I don't have streaming but instead buy discs or borrow them from the library. What I watch is something I actively chose, not just something that came over streaming or the airwaves.
Quote from: kkt on June 20, 2018, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 20, 2018, 04:17:52 PM
Couple of observations:
* Many streaming platforms, e.g. Netflix, automatically cue up the next episode of a TV series once you come to the end of the current episode, so this is an improvement over having to wait for broadcast of the next episode as well as a mitigant for the additional control navigation required before you can begin watching.
* Arguably, having to proactively choose what one watches is feature, not bug, since it establishes behavioral barriers to mindless TV watching.
A round of applause for your last point! That is actually the biggest reason I don't have streaming but instead buy discs or borrow them from the library. What I watch is something I actively chose, not just something that came over streaming or the airwaves.
It is a good point–in the older days of TV, there was less content available, so the simple act of turning it on was more likely to mean that you had specifically chosen to watch something particular. So, as with any example of Elmer, the existence of the regression depends on what you identify as the problem being solved.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 20, 2018, 04:17:52 PM* Arguably, having to proactively choose what one watches is feature, not bug, since it establishes behavioral barriers to mindless TV watching.
Oh, I have a couple of shows on Hulu I watch mindlessly.
Quote from: empirestate on June 20, 2018, 03:46:32 PM
Just to offer another TV-related example I've noticed: Especially for cord-cutters using app-based systems, but also for traditional cable service, just the simple act of turning on the TV and beginning to view its content has become much slower and more complicated.
Old way: Pull out the knob and wait a few seconds. In some cases, set one or two nearby dials to the correct channel; but even without this step, some programming will be displayed without any further action.
New way: Turn on TV set. Turn on smart TV device. Navigate through menu to desired app. Navigate through app menu to find desired programming. Note that no programming is displayed until this last step is completed.
My cable box is such a piece of crap, it takes me almost as long to bring up the programming guide and pick something to watch as it does to pick something to watch via a streaming service.
Having a streaming service requires a broadband internet connection with sufficient speed and available data to make it work. That's one big reason I don't have any streaming services.
My problem with the streaming idea is twofold: (1) No convenient way to watch Nats games because MASN isn't on any of the streaming services and is otherwise unavailable online in the DC area unless you pay for MLB.tv AND use a VPN to mask your location (the latter because of MLB's blackout rules). (2) Probably more important for reasons married posters will understand–Ms1995hoo and I have been married for almost eight years and she's comfortable with DirecTV (before we got married, she just had an antenna), so I'm reluctant to make her learn a new system unless it's really something outstanding.
We might consider trying Sling TV except for the Nats game issue noted above. I could probably do the VPN thing, but I'd have to do some research to determine which VPN service to use, how to do it, etc.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 24, 2018, 05:57:50 PM
My problem with the streaming idea is twofold: (1) No convenient way to watch Nats games because MASN isn't on any of the streaming services and is otherwise unavailable online in the DC area unless you pay for MLB.tv AND use a VPN to mask your location (the latter because of MLB's blackout rules). (2) Probably more important for reasons married posters will understand–Ms1995hoo and I have been married for almost eight years and she's comfortable with DirecTV (before we got married, she just had an antenna), so I'm reluctant to make her learn a new system unless it's really something outstanding.
We might consider trying Sling TV except for the Nats game issue noted above. I could probably do the VPN thing, but I'd have to do some research to determine which VPN service to use, how to do it, etc.
Really the only reason we pay for the OTA channels is for sporting events and other shows I want to watch live. You are correct that there is no good solution to that.