Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

[Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net>]

Lee Hart wrote:
> 
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > 
> >     [snip...]         [snip..]         [snip...]
> > 
> > Things eventually get so easy that they are *not* worth doing
> > anymore.
> 
> People are still writing books, painting pictures, and writing music
> after thousands of years. They don't keep doing the same old thing; they
> find new ways to express their creativity.
> 
> Same with computers. Do you think we've really reached the end of the
> line on creativity? I don't think we've even scratched the surface yet.
> 
I agree. I was talking about the mainstream line of thought. When hobbby
computers *were* the mainstream, parts, magazine articles, and people to
help you were *much* easier to come by. 
>
> Einstein was once asked how much he knew about physics. He answered that
> he knew 1 or maybe 2% of it. "The size of our little world of knowledge
> may seem vast, but it is nothing compared to the vastness of the
> universe."
> 
Or the Isaac Newton quote:

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to
 have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself 
 in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than
 ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.'
>
> For example, analog computing has languished for decades. They could
> always do simulations and solve complex differential equations far
> faster than the best digital computers. Built with modern chips, analog
> computers could put us an order of magnitude ahead for certain types of
> problems.
> 
> Another: We have chosen the "god in a CPU" architecture for our PCs --
> one supreme all-powerful all-knowing CPU that runs everything,
> surrounded by much smaller CPUs that are total idiots in comparison.
> Instead, what about architectures where there are large numbers of small
> CPU, roughly equal in capability, networked together to form a powerful
> system. Working examples of such systems can outperform supercomputers,
> at far lower cost. They could readily be built with Z80-type SBCs by
> hobbyiests.
> 
> There is a tremendous amount of new territory to explore. And, it is
> more likely to be explored by hobbyists and experimenters, not by large
> corporations who have largely dismantled their R&D efforts in favor of
> profits this quarter.
> 
Yes, but now that these developments are out of the "mainstream", it
is so hard to find parts and information about such things. Back during
the development and/or hobby period, material and information abounded.
>
> > radios... automobiles... watches. All the "gee whiz" has gone out
> > of owning a radio or a car or a watch. It is so easy to have one,
> > and most people do *not* pay much attention to them anymore.
> 
> Most, yes. All; no! There are still huge numbers of people building
> crystal radios; there is magic in pulling voices out of thin air. Ham
> radio operators still build radios; only for amateur TV, or moonbounce,
> or to communicate with their own satellites.
> 
> Car nuts abound. There are hundreds of kit cars on the market, and
> millions of classic cars being restored and driven my people. I happen
> to be an electric car nut; my hobby EVs outperform the auto company's
> "we can't do it; it's too hard" offerings.
> 
> Clocks: There is a thriving market in people who build their own
> grandfather's clocks. Electronic digital clock kits are still popular.
> 
> Computers, which once had an absolutely tremendous hobbyist following,
> now seem to have one of the smallest hobbyist and experimenter segments.
> 
Of course, all of us odd-ball hobbyists still exist. ;-) But to the
average person, we are like two-headed cows...real oddities that have
*not* the good sense to use the "obviously better" machines available
now. I am *not* touting the vitures of being "mainstream"...I am
only lamenting the fact that way the mainstream is going...makes it
so much harder to be a hobbyist. 

To me, this is what you were saying by lamenting "surface mount"
technology being the norm today. Salvaging surface mount chips is darn
near impossible!!! IMHO the mainstream in cars, computers, watches,
and others...progresses to the point of being so cheap and easy to
acquire...that the items become commodities and *most* people do *not*
give them a second thought after that. This making of a commodity
is what is "cutting the lower rungs off of the ladder" and making it
impossible for the youth coming up now...to learn the basics of how
electronics work. IMHO the new ones coming up *never* will learn the
basics.
>
> > mostly these inventors were *not* part of the main stream... and
> > they were *not* plugged in to the "that's the way we've always
> > done it" mentality. That's why the airplane had to be invented by
> > bicycle mechanics.
> 
> Absolutely!!! Who do you think will invent the next generation of
> computers. Microsoft? Intel? Not a chance! They will perpetuate the
> status quo.
> 
> It is vital to have a strong hobby/experimenter segment, because that's
> where the innovations will come from!
> 

I certainly agree with this!!! 

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Charles and Francis Richmond     <richmond@plano.net>   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+