Ultra-portable terminals

[Fairlight]

Is it just me, or did John Esak say:
> I see the naysayers already starting to talk about why this is a "bad"
> thing.... Instead, let me point out something "good" about such units. Had

I'd not say I'm necessarily a naysayer.  Perhaps just jaded.  All your
points are well taken, John.  And valid.  I remember Dr. Dovelle (actually,
I remember being the one that told you his web site said he'd unfortunately
passed away, as well).  Truly a visionary (no pun intended).  It's a pity
that the really bright people don't get the full backing of society and its
funding to fully realise their work unhindered by economics.

Let me just clarify that when new tech comes out...some new gadget, I'm
looking at it at face value.  What is it, what does it do?  I'm not looking
at it from the context of, "Wow, they made this device.  What if they
took that technology and used it in 'x' unrelated field--that could be
life-changing."  The criticism (or obvservations) I make are limited to the
type of device it is and that one implementation, not the technology behind
that one device or type.

And yes, jaded. :) I mean, think about it.  I was born in '71.  I'm at a
loss to think of any time in my lifetime since I've actually been able
to remember anything that there -wasn't- a period of innovation.  I
remember my father bringing home one of the very first "pocket" electronic
calculators when I was a kid.  When they were $800ish each, mind you,
for your basic 4 or 8 function calculator that was -huge-...practically
the size of a VHS tape if memory serves--nothing complex like an HP-48,
not even close.  The Fairlight was in my time, as were pretty much all
the analog and then digital synths.  Microcomputers pretty much evolved
entirely within my lifetime.  I remember when CD's came out.  I was on
the early edge of the consumer adoption curve when "how many beams does
it have" was a semi-valid question (that was later proven to be a gimmick
of sorts).  The VCR, another one.  The microwave oven.  I'd have to ask
you or Bill Vermillion about the timeline, but possibly even 8-track and
cassette...or just barely missed it.  The cell phones I remember when they
first came out were about the size of car batteries for the bases.  Mine
doesn't even flesh out a shirt pocket.  Kelly and I were just going through
a list of things that have been invented during our lives that we can
firmly point to and say that we remember a time when they didn't exist.
Just yesterday, in fact, we had this very conversation, and concluded we
feel bloody old because there's been no "slow" period of invention in our
lifetimes.  Things have always evolved quickly within this timeframe, and
increasingly we take them more for granted.

The answer amounted to a -lot- of technology.  I'm not saying it's not
mostly great, wonderful, and powerful.  I wouldn't choose to live in any
other age because I wouldn't want to be without 90% of this stuff.  It's
just that, personally, when new things come out it actually takes a fair
amount of novel and innovative value to make me go, "Wow, neat!"  It's
two-fold:  As I said, I can't remember a time in my lifetime when there
-wasn't- a major innovative cycle in one field of technology or another.
As well, there's the tendency for repeats and rehashes of new technology
to the point where you just want to go, "Not Yet Another [insert device
type]!  How many do we -need-?!"  Which I'm not alone in, as people have
started with the Y.A. initials in acronyms, standing for Yet Another.
Yet Another Bulletin Board is YABB, for example.  At the point where
you get so saturated with devices, I sometimes feel jaded enough to go,
"NOT Another!", which would be really interesting as a name for a PDA
clone...NAPalm...  I wonder if that would sell.  Possibly only if the
batteries explode. :) What's ironic is that people actually forget the
device that started that whole thing--The Newton, which was kind of neat
in price-point for relative currency, although ill-conceived as only
right-handed people could use it; the algorithm that dealt with reading
handwriting couldn't handle lefties.  Over a decade later, after Newton was
scoffed out of existance, Palm is a huge thing and has competition from
multiple companies.  Go figure.  But I digress...

I'm just saying, I'm certainly not trying to take away hope.  You would
know that of all people, I could do with some myself.  But I look at some
of these things and the sheer redundancy of some, and I don't see hope,
myself.  I see people capitalising on merging of technologies to strictly
increase their profit margins.  But they're not actually -doing- the
life-changing stuff at this point...at least certainly not to the degree
that would help people and truly inspire hope.  Which fact saps my own
hope in humanity and in whatever I needed hope for to begin with.

I guess it's in how you look at it.  And I'm pretty much an idealist
trapped in the brain of a fatalist, so I'm not going to necessarily see it
the same way, obviously.

I do, however, respect your views on the matter.  And I'd not intentionally
try to do anything to rob anyone of hope.  I agree--it can be the only
thing that keeps one going.  BTDT.  Just keep in mind that I'm not trying
to dismantle hope when I critically analyse one implementation of some
technology--it doesn't necessarily follow that the tech behind it is bad or
worthless.  And I'd never have conceived of the use you did for that kind
of resolution display.  My actual question after reading your mail was, do
you know if the limitation was the output, or the sensory input gathering
of the device implanted?  I remember it fed directly to the optical centre
of the brain, so -output- resolution isn't the key, as far as I can tell.
It was more a matter of getting either better scanning resolutions (new
camera resolutions would be an excitement there), or maybe trying to
compress all that data in realtime to get more than that smaller raster
actually processed and sent where it's going within the brain.  Another
reason I never really would have drawn the comparison.

As I said though, I see where you're coming from, and no disrespect or
slaying of dreams was intended.

Actually, if one thinks about it, one can wonder about miraculous
possibilities all the time.  Okay, this is a semi-wild extrapolation,
but as a "for example"...  If the vision thing worked, that says direct
neural input is possible, and can be utilised.  Now, can it work both ways?
We have increasingly shrinking storage media.  If you could put, in a few
years, a petabyte on a single stick of media (Arthur C. Clarke drew on
research that said that pretty much the entire human mind could be stored
in a petabyte, and cited references--I think that was from 3001: Final
Oddessey), what if you could implant that stick, and implement not only
passive input, but input based on neural output request?  Suddenly you'd
have a possible treatment for Alzheimer's or other memory disorders
(partial-complex seizures screw with your short term memory, for
example--but if it's recorded, *poof* all the gap problems are gone).   
I mean, that'd be amazing, I personally think.  Not sure how probable or
even possible it is, but one can dream.

I -am- capable of being positive.  I swear.  :)

mark->