Jump to content

Exactly One Optimal Technology Impetus


B. John Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

[it was a toss-up between "Engineering" and "Other Sciences" since there's no section for "Technologies."]

 

There is exactly one optimal technology whose development would be most beneficial to humanity at this stage of history--the display technology of the original Kindle Reader. It uses ink-to-paper-like engineering instead of artificial lighting. I am convinced that the only restraining force from our developing this technology to maturity is the cost, with reckless disregard to cost-benefit. Over the short-term, businesses will generate more lucre mass producing video or visual display units that project light, rather than investing over the long-term to develop the Kindle technology. People who prefer money to good deeds don't seem to care about the greater good--in this case optimizing the visual well-being for everyone who uses any kind of video or visual display units.

Edited by B. John Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Cease all research on treatments for multidrug resistant bacteria, the artificial pancreas, nuclear fusion,carbon sequestration, affordable electric cars, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Cease all research on treatments for multidrug resistant bacteria, the artificial pancreas, nuclear fusion,carbon sequestration, affordable electric cars, etc.

 

Cost-benefit. It's far easier to save millions of lives giving necessary food and water to those lacking it than it is to "develop" drugs for "cures" such as cancer, or "better" air quality through superior automobiles or vaping "technologies," except, of course, "your own," probably aren't included in those losing their lives to hunger and thirst, and lack of $10 medicines which we've had for decades and centuries.

 

(it should be understood I'm grouping kindle with food--basic goods)

Edited by B. John Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is exactly one optimal technology whose development would be most beneficial to humanity at this stage of history--the display technology of the original Kindle Reader. It uses ink-to-paper-like engineering instead of artificial lighting.

There are at least 10 companies (and a number of research projects) developing these technologies at the moment. It has made great advances since the original Kindle.

 

Personally, I find these displays almost unusable so, despite their advantages, I think there is still a long way to go.

 

Whether this is the most beneficial technology seems doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 10 companies (and a number of research projects) developing these technologies at the moment. It has made great advances since the original Kindle.

 

Personally, I find these displays almost unusable so, despite their advantages, I think there is still a long way to go.

 

Whether this is the most beneficial technology seems doubtful.

 

I'm talking about developing them to the stage of high-definition video. It shouldn't have taken 50 years to get from lcd timekeeping to kindle. People were more concerned about cheap video. Amusement usually trumps rich entertainment in the human view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cost-benefit. It's far easier to save millions of lives giving necessary food and water to those lacking it than it is to "develop" drugs for "cures" such as cancer, or "better" air quality through superior automobiles or vaping "technologies," except, of course, "your own," probably aren't included in those losing their lives to hunger and thirst, and lack of $10 medicines which we've had for decades and centuries.

 

Actually, a dose of praziquantel to treat schistomiasis costs about 20c US. Your presumptive comment insinuating I care only about technology that impacts me neglects the number of years I have and continue to spend researching methods to combat neglected tropical diseases.

 

But you, know, give a man a kindle and you'll feed him for... well... and cure him of?

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, a dose of praziquantel to treat schistomiasis costs about 20c US. Your presumptive comment insinuating I care only about technology that impacts me neglects the number of years I have and continue to spend researching methods to combat neglected tropical diseases.

 

But you, know, give a man a kindle and you'll feed him for... well... and cure him of?

 

How about a ratio of 20 cent jobs to "higher-ends?" They say Bill Gates and Don Trump have given so much. These are men of renowned achievement, and contribution, but mostly to causes they can be recognized for (sorry for the breach of grammar). Of course, I haven't looked at their check registers or lifestyles. Still, I think it's safe to assume.

 

But you, know, give a man a kindle and you'll feed him for... well... and cure him of?

 

And yes, education is vital. But monies for education would be released from every insitution, with a blanket improvement of human vision due to one invention. Instead, let's just mass produce what we have because, hey, it's convention.

 

I'm not saying cease studies for cancer, etc. But distribution of efforts ought to be concentrated where it counts.

I'm not saying cease studies for cancer, etc. But distribution of efforts ought to be concentrated where it counts.

 

For example, nutrition is a legitimate cure for cancer, not radiology or hemp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He strode into the disease stricken village full of confidence. He stood tall and proclaimed "Rejoice people, I have brought things to change your lives for the better!"

The villagers exclaimed with joy. What had the man brought? Medicines? Vaccines? Water filters? Food? The asked.

"No" He stated "Much better than any of those! I have brought the King James Bible on an original Kindle for EVERYONE!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He strode into the disease stricken village full of confidence. He stood tall and proclaimed "Rejoice people, I have brought things to change your lives for the better!"

The villagers exclaimed with joy. What had the man brought? Medicines? Vaccines? Water filters? Food? The asked.

"No" He stated "Much better than any of those! I have brought the King James Bible on an original Kindle for EVERYONE!"

The new Guthenberg Kindle! The pressing of the bible got everybody reading and look where we are now a few hundred years later. I had to throw that one in :)

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the real advantages you would have from this display type?

 

Unable to use in darkness,night.. Disadvantage.

 

Little power consumption less.

My 24" LED monitor, takes 19.3 W (just measured with watt meter), while the rest of desktop machine up to 500 W (probably average around 200-300 W).

That's 5-10% energy less used.

 

19.3 W * 3600s * 14h/d * 30 d/m / 3.6e6 = 8.106 kWh per month * 0.62 / 3.78 = $1.33 on electricity bill less per month. That's 5% of my total.

 

Optimization always should be started from things that are consuming the most of energy/money/time etc.

If you optimize computer program, you run profiler, informing which function is running the slowest and CPU spend the most of its time.

You don't start optimize from things that would give barely difference.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the real advantages you would have from this display type?

 

Unable to use in darkness,night.. Disadvantage.

 

Little power consumption less.

My 24" LED monitor, takes 19.3 W (just measured with watt meter), while the rest of desktop machine up to 500 W (probably average around 200-300 W).

That's 5-10% energy less used.

 

19.3 W * 3600s * 14h/d * 30 d/m / 3.6e6 = 8.106 kWh per month * 0.62 / 3.78 = $1.33 on electricity bill less per month. That's 5% of my total.

 

Optimization always should be started from things that are consuming the most of energy/money/time etc.

If you optimize computer program, you run profiler, informing which function is running the slowest and CPU spend the most of its time.

You don't start optimize from things that would give barely difference.

Loss of visual health ought to take precedence. Besides, loss of visual wellness will cost money, time and energy, not to mention many of the pleasant things in life. I would read by lamp at night instead of stare at light projection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would read by lamp at night instead of stare at light projection.

By both methods, it's still photons entering your eyes. The obvious thing to do is to turn down the intensity to the same level and contrast as a Kindle-type device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loss of visual health ought to take precedence.

 

 

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world.

For example, nutrition is a legitimate cure for cancer, not radiology or hemp.

 

Nonsense.

And "hemp" !?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world.

 

Nonsense.

And "hemp" !?

I see so many people claiming that a good food diet is a cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't seem to make the connection. Good food destroys rouge cells who's mitosis process is flawed... hmm. Jupiters gonna have a baby before I can make the connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, nutrition is a legitimate cure for cancer, not radiology or hemp.

Please, please tell me you're not a practicing physician.

And, on the matter of optical degeneration from staring at glowing screens too much...

 

Turn off the screen and go outside. It's not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about developing them to the stage of high-definition video. It shouldn't have taken 50 years to get from lcd timekeeping to kindle. People were more concerned about cheap video. Amusement usually trumps rich entertainment in the human view.

Do you know what also happened during those 50 years, that may have had some slight impact?

 

The miniaturization of storage technology.

 

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is slightly on the large side; it takes about 1.2 megabytes, or approximately 10000000 (10^7) bits of data.

 

For reference, the Apollo Guidance Program - which was used to put men on the moon - took up 64 kilobytes, or approximately 500000 (5*10^5) bits of data.

 

And that's only one of many important technologies behind the creation of the kindle. It doesn't even begin to touch on why yes, those 50 years were necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see so many people claiming that a good food diet is a cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't seem to make the connection. Good food destroys rouge cells who's mitosis process is flawed... hmm. Jupiters gonna have a baby before I can make the connection.

 

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

 

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's multi-generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

 

For example, fermented and cultured foods, fortify the natural development of genetic processes and DNA structures.

Do you know what also happened during those 50 years, that may have had some slight impact?

 

The miniaturization of storage technology.

 

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is slightly on the large side; it takes about 1.2 megabytes, or approximately 10000000 (10^7) bits of data.

 

For reference, the Apollo Guidance Program - which was used to put men on the moon - took up 64 kilobytes, or approximately 500000 (5*10^5) bits of data.

 

And that's only one of many important technologies behind the creation of the kindle. It doesn't even begin to touch on why yes, those 50 years were necessary.

 

Okay, to what end? Nevermind, I think I know. Yep. The almighty dollar. 99.999% of our investment in technology is to one end. Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books. Something's gotta give folks.

By both methods, it's still photons entering your eyes. The obvious thing to do is to turn down the intensity to the same level and contrast as a Kindle-type device.

 

Light reflected is natural. Light projected is against the nature of the human eye.

 

 

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world.

 

Nonsense.

And "hemp" !?

 

How is it not relevant? This thread is about the kindle technology being the one viable area to concentrate development efforts in technologies. Visual health is the primary reason to develop the technology of the original kindle display. Right now it's basically black and white ink, electronically displayed on a tablet that is practically a sheet of paper. It can be developed to the degree of high definition video. This technology would be a remarkable contribution to the health of everyone. Light reflected is natural to the human eye, but light projected, as with the current standards for displays, is against the nature of the human eye.

Edited by B. John Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, to what end? Nevermind, I think I know. Yep. The almighty dollar. 99.999% of our investment in technology is to one end. Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books. Something's gotta give folks.

How does this respond to what I posted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

 

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

 

 

For example, fermented and cultured foods, fortify the natural development of genetic processes and DNA structures.

 

People have been eating fermented and cultured foods for millennia. Cancer is still around.

 

 

 

Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books.

 

1. There is a massive amount of research and investment in these technologies.

 

2. What evidence do you have of any significance for optical health?

 

 

Light reflected is natural. Light projected is against the nature of the human eye.

 

Light is light.

 

 

 

Visual health is the primary reason to develop the technology of the original kindle display.

 

No it wasn't. The main motivation was battery life.

 

 

 

Right now it's basically black and white ink, electronically displayed on a tablet that is practically a sheet of paper.

 

Colour versions are available.

 

 

 

It can be developed to the degree of high definition video.

 

The biggest challenge is speed of update, not resolution.

 

 

 

Light reflected is natural to the human eye, but light projected, as with the current standards for displays, is against the nature of the human eye.

 

Citation needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

I've had people who wouldn't look at my driver's license, and those who when they looked, wouldn't believe that I was past the age of 27 years. I'm pushing 41. People hardly ever guess that I'm past the age of 27. I feel 27. I study molecular modeling, I study biological processes, I study foods, I emphasize wider varieties of foods and nutrients, rather than a particular mode of diet, or quantities of foods, and my overall health keeps improving. For 12 years I had a diagnosis of spasmodic dysphonia, a localized neurological disease in the voice box. I've studied neurological processes, leading to breathing techniques, and nutrients in foods that also assist processes such as hormonal transmissions and balances and their effects in this condition. My voice was so impaired it bore heavily on every aspect of my life. Through diet, and physical, material faith, my voice has been completely repaired. Moreover, I'm quite an entertainer from the kitchen.

Okay, to what end? Nevermind, I think I know. Yep. The almighty dollar. 99.999% of our investment in technology is to one end. Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books. Something's gotta give folks.

 

 

How does this respond to what I posted?

 

Okay, after this, to bed.

 

You had mentioned that much, apparently more significant work, had been done towards improvements in mass-storage capacities in computing. I'm suggesting that a slice of that time could have, and should have been devoted to more optimal display technologies, but was neglected, probably because storage seemed far more "profitable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've had people who wouldn't look at my driver's license, and those who when they looked, wouldn't believe that I was past the age of 27 years. I'm pushing 41. People hardly ever guess that I'm past the age of 27. I feel 27. I study molecular modeling, I study biological processes, I study foods, I emphasize wider varieties of foods and nutrients, rather than a particular mode of diet, or quantities of foods, and my overall health keeps improving. For 12 years I had a diagnosis of spasmodic dysphonia, a localized neurological disease in the voice box. I've studied neurological processes, leading to breathing techniques, and nutrients in foods that also assist processes such as hormonal transmissions and balances and their effects in this condition. My voice was so impaired it bore heavily on every aspect of my life. Through diet, and physical, material faith, my voice has been completely repaired. Moreover, I'm quite an entertainer from the kitchen.

 

 

So no evidence, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So no evidence, then.

I love it when people get anecdote and evidence confused.

 

Wait, no I don't.

 

Re light intensity.

 

If reflected light is supposedly less harmful than projected light, then why does it make me cry to look at light reflected on the surface of a lake, but I'm fine when I watch my TV? I'll answer my own question (with apologies to the original Clinton campaign), "It's the intensity, stupid."

 

Your eye is really just a fancy camera lens. It honestly doesn't care where the light is coming from - light is light, as someone so astutely posted earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also an incredibly ignorant and infuriatingly entitled perspective. How about these anecdotes: I have got collaborators who have the issue that an otherwise relative routine operation can end in catastrophe due to accidental Clostridium difficile infection. Please go ahead and tell the patient's relative that if only they had an entertaining platform using E-ink. Or ask some of the researchers who work in Malawi who try to implement improved measure to avoid children dying from diarrhea in Malawi and other countries. Or hey, provide them with gadgets that they cannot use anyway, since they lack sufficient energy supply. Or if we just want to ignore all the people who lack even the necessary basics to survive (cause, hey screw them, I got mine, right?), how about things that even rich societies suffer from. How about recent progress in managing chronic conditions such as cystic fibrosis or diabetes and even AIDS? Would any of that have happened just wit a better toy? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.