85 Big Ideas that Changed the World 524
ccnull writes "Forbes just put out its well thought-out list of 85 breakthroughs since 1917 (sneakers) that have revolutionized the way we live. This is interesting on a number of levels -- crazy trivia (the microprocessor and the answering machine invented in the same year!?), a reminder of the past (the modem: 1962), and a frightening realization that not much of interest has come out of the last 10 years (a whopping 4 of the 85 ideas). Easily digestible and worth discussing."
Recent Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know (Score:2, Funny)
Etiquette (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a matter of education and etiquette. People learned to scoop their doggie poo; they will learn how to use cell phones.
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're really saying then is that you're the only person on the whole planet?
And Then, Chillingly... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:2, Interesting)
Has it revolutionized the world? I've never used a cell phone in my life and have no intention of ever buying one. There are pay-phones on almost every corner everywhere in the world.
A odd realization of the way cell phones have impacted our lives came to me when I was watching the "futuristic" movie A Clockwork Orange. Alex and his droogs go to people's doors at night pleading to be let in to use the phone because there had been a terrible accident. Most people's sympathy would force them to open the doors and they would then be robbed, raped, and sometimes murdered by the gang. Today though, with the wide proliferation would eliminate that as a way in. You'd either not let them in at all ("Surely one of you must have a cell phone!") or you'd go upstairs and toss your cell phone out a window so they could use it if it were a real emergency.
Of course, I think that people have also gotten more sour and nasty than portrayed in Mr. Kubrick's movie, but that has little to do with cell phones.
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
If I refused to own a television, could we discount TV? How about if we find a cure for cancer? If I never get cancer, does it fail to revolutionize the world???
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:3, Informative)
dunno what superman will do tho...
Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget that the folks at Ma Bell saw little use for the transistor, so they licensed it cheap to Sony and other Japanese companies, who proceeded to get rich selling transistor radios. Anyone making a list in, say, 1955, might well have left the 1947 invention of the transistor off.
Also, some of Forbes' choices are strange: tetraethyl lead? This did not "change the way we live".
tetraethyl lead (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it did! It "lead" the way for all of those "Unleaded Fuel Only" stickers that almost all of us have on our dashboards. I dunno about you, but I sure sleep better at night knowing that's there.
Tetraethyl lead (Score:5, Interesting)
The discovery that tetraethyl lead could prevent knock was huge leap forward; it was a huge boost to the automotive industry, since it allowed manufacturers to build safer/more reliable/more powerful/etc engines.
These days all we hear about are the health risks of tetraethyl lead (it's toxic as hell), but back in the early 1900's it was seen as a tremendous leap forward. Without it, cars, airplanes, etc would be very different today.
Re:Tetraethyl lead (Score:3, Informative)
Today gas is so cheap and our standard of living so high that most people aren't terribly concerned about the amount of money they spend on gasoline.
This wasn't true in the early days of the automobile and the significant boost in mileage and the corresponding lowering of the cost of operating a car was considered important.
.
Re:Tetraethyl lead (Score:3, Interesting)
Folks this is nothing more than a classic cost/benefit analysis made by the automobile and petroleum companies back in the 1920s. They chose profits at the expense of public healthand the environment. They got away with it for nearly 50 years until the early 70s when the scientific evidence against leaded gasoline was too overwhelming to ignore.
From http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Lead-History.h
While they were busy glossing over its perilous shortcomings for the public health, tetraethyl lead's boosters almost forgot that their "gift of God" posed some serious problems for cars. Instead of benefitting, engines were getting destroyed by lead deposits. GM researchers had noted this early in TEL's life, but Charles Kettering was anxious to get the new product to market. Problems, he argued, could be worked out with real-life experience to guide them. But necessary changes were slow in coming.
In May 1926, three years after leaded fuel went on sale, GM's Alfred Sloan wrote Ethyl's new president, Earle Webb, to express concern that valve corrosion with Ethyl gas was so bad after 2,000-3,000 miles that it rendered cars "inoperative." Rather late in the day, one would have thought, he urged further development of the product. Referring to Ethyl's decision to re-enter the market, he wrote, "Now that we are back in again and are considering pushing the sale [of Ethyl] to the utmost, I think we ought to be concerned with this question."
So the additive that Standard, GM, Du Pont and the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation defended so vigorously before the Surgeon General and the nation wasn't even any good yet--it junked people's second-largest investment, after their homes. Incredibly, in spite of the near-magical claims being made for TEL, GM's own car divisions were at this very time bitterly resisting engine modifications to take advantage of it. In fact, GM's Buick, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Oakland and Cadillac divisions would not recommend it to their customers until 1927, when they circulated bulletins to their dealers calling on them to withdraw any objections to leaded fuel. This was six years after TEL's invention and a full year and a half after a fractious national debate on TEL at the high-profile Public Health Service conference in Washington. Tellingly, support for TEL was forever lacking in the Society of Automotive Engineers Journal, the automotive engineering community's leading organ.
The damaging effects to which Sloan referred necessitated the introduction of chemical "scavengers," which would cause the residue of the spent ethyl fluid to leave the engine along with the car's exhaust gases, thus preventing lead buildup. After a little trial-and-error experimentation proved the destructiveness of chlorine, ethylene dibromide (EDB), a byproduct of bromine invented by Dow Chemical in the twenties, was selected as the scavenger of choice.
Proving the old maxim that you only make things worse when you tell a lie, Ethyl's adoption of EDB and its widespread use have created several waves of secondary environmental disaster. In more recent times, EDB combustion has been linked to halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in exhaust, believed to be cancer risks. Also, when EDB is burned in the engine, it creates methyl bromide, which as a component of automobile exhaust the World Meteorological Organization has termed one of "three potentially major sources of atmospheric methyl bromide," which harms the ozone layer.
With the eventual demise of the US market for leaded fuel written on the wall, Ethyl had to find a new market for its lead scavenger EDB, and in 1972 it did--as a pesticide. Twelve years later, EDB would be banned by the EPA in this application following a 1974 finding that it was a powerful cancer-causing agent in animals; a 1977 finding of "strong evidence" that it caused cancer in humans; and a 1981 determination that it was "a potent mutagen"--a carcinogen with especially damaging consequences for human reproductive systems, powerful enough that it should be removed immediately from the food chain. This was bad news, as the United States was by now putting 20 million pounds of EDB into its soils annually, and it had begun to show up in cake mixes and cereal. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would also act to restrict EDB exposure, and the EPA would cite its reduction in the atmosphere as an additional benefit of the leaded gasoline phaseout.
Today the mechanical benefits of unleaded gasoline are obvious. Ever wonder why your new car goes longer than your old one between spark-plug changes? Or why exhaust systems last longer? Or why oil changes don't need to be as frequent? Try unleaded fuel. In a report delivered to the Society of Automotive Engineers, lead-free fuel was shown to significantly reduce engine rusting, piston-ring wear and sludge and varnish deposits, as well as to reduce camshaft wear. In 1985 an EPA report concluded that reduced lead levels reduced piston-ring and cylinder-bore wear, preventing engine failure and improving fuel economy. Estimated maintenance savings exceeded the maintenance costs associated with recession of exhaust valves, which is caused by the use of unleaded gasoline.
Gary Smith, an English Ford engineer working in the area of fuel economy and quality/vehicle/environmental engineering, told The Nation: "The higher the lead content, the more it messes the engine oil up, and we wanted to get longer intervals between engine oil changes, so that's a negative for lead as well.... [The scavengers used in leaded gasoline] or combustion of anything with chlorine or bromine will make hydrochloric and hydrobromic acid, so the actual muffler systems get corroded. They end up on--and affect--the spark plugs. Because we're trying to keep warranty costs down and [lower] costs for customers, we found ourselves going away from lead."
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
Without this, motor cars wouldn't have been practical. And frankly the replacements don't work as well- lead protects valve seats far, far better.
Re:Lead & valves (Score:3, Interesting)
The other myth is that there were no good alternatives. In fact alcohol worked as well then as now. (It just wasn't patentable.)
They managed to suppress the evidence for just how toxic was the lead they were scattering around for many decades. The suppression was deliberate and criminally fraudulent.
Leaded gasoline was a disaster and a crime on a scale similar to the asbestos deception of the same era, but one that has still not been prosecuted, largely for political reasons. It is almost a miracle that leaded gas got banned at all. The ban certainly wouldn't happen in today's political climate, even though lead was killing a World Trade Center's worth of Americans every week. Killing Americans is a corporate privilege.
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Funny)
Uhh... think about baseball?
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:2)
Re:Recent Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point: the article talks about The Modem: 1962. You really think a list compiled in 1972 would include that?
It really does make me wonder about the galaxy of technology that has already been invented, has a functional prototype, and which no member of the public will ever see until the year 2045. If you had the means to seek out all that stuff, you'd probably find that our society is 50 years more advanced than it appears.
For example, some of what I've read has indicated that recent revolutions in turbine technology (within the last 3 years) make it possible to run the world's power grid entirely with windmills on farms and hydroelectric power. How long do you think it'll take that innovation to become significant to our lives?
GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking through the list, the inventions fall into 4 categories.
1. American inventions, where their origin is made clear. They're quite careful to always list where the inventions came from, along the lines of "(asian/eastern european name) of the University of (somewhere in America)"
2.Foreign inventions, where no mention of their inventors nationality is made. Fleming, the inventor of penicillin is one example.
3. Foreign inventions that are credited to Americans who came along later. Television and computers are two examples.
4. Foreign inventions that are credited to their actual inventors, and nationality acknowledged. I counted 3.
What is it with Americans?
Why do you feed the need to claim the credit for everything?
Re:^^ Mod Up ^^ (Score:3, Interesting)
Babbage's computer is more that 85 years old, and therefore outside the scope of the article.
I'd be interested to know who, if not Philo Farnsworth, submitted a concept paper on the subject of television to his high school teacher (assuming they had high schools in the homeland of whoever the true inventor was). Did Farnsworth plagiarize previous work? Did he come by his idea independently of the true inventor? Did the revolutionary implementation build on Farnsworth's work or the other guy's? If the world-changing television was developed based on Farnsworth's work, in ignorance or disregard of the other guy, then I see no problem with crediting Farnsworth with the world-change.
Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian inventor living in Paris, flew a heavier-than-air craft (the 14-Bis) years before the Wright Flyer left the ground. Shortly afterwards, he successfully flew the Demoiselle, another HTA craft.
Sadly, lack of proper marketing, combined with Santos-Dumont's lifelong obsession with dirigibles (the 14-Bis and the Demoiselle were side projects), left him as a footnote in history, and the Wright brothers are not only credited with the first HTA flight (wrongly), but also credited with revolutionizing travel (rightly, I think--but that's a matter of opinion).
Should have been 86 ideas.. (Score:2, Funny)
"In Soviet Russia.."
Much noise, little activity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Much noise, little activity (Score:2)
We might be making crappier toasters than in 1958. But we sure know how to be more efficient in making bad ones.
The last ten Years (Score:2)
Practical Uses From Knowledge (Score:3, Insightful)
Just rambling... some food for thought
Re:Practical Uses From Knowledge (Score:2)
Not really that frightening. (Score:5, Insightful)
and a frightening realization that not much of interest has come out of the last 10 years (a whopping 4 of the 85 ideas).
It may be a little early to write off the last 10 years. Let's wait another 10 years before we decide that only 4 things from the last 10 years are significant enought to change the world
Give it some time... (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that a similar list, composed in 1927, would include sneakers. No doubt there are dozens of inventions from the past 10 years that will be cherished 75 years from now.
BTW, I saw Steve Forbes speak on this topic on FOX News a week or 2 ago, did not read this article but remember the discussion.
86th Idea That Changed the World (Score:2, Funny)
mmm.... errr... a...
Thumbnail galleries?
Re:86th Idea That Changed the World (Score:2)
Thumbnail galleries?"
Don't forget JPEG.
what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what? (Score:4, Funny)
And no one-click shopping either! Philistines!
Re:what? (Score:2)
Something to keep in mind (Score:2)
Of course you should always keep in mind that rarely when something new comes around does it appear "world changing" right from the get-go. When they invented the microchip, did they envision a world of millions of interconnected computers where any ol' yahoo(tm) would be able to post his views for millions of people to view? It is often the later uses of something that you can't even forsee that change the world.
The problem with recent ideas... (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I didn't see on the list was nanotechnology, which is going to hugely impact the future. We're only seeing it in limited ways so far, but 10 or 20 years from now it's going to revolutionize a lot of things. Also, one thing I noticed was that, while a number of inventions like fiber optics were created some time ago, it's only recently that the implementations have borne practical fruit.
Re:The problem with recent ideas... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The problem with recent ideas... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh man, I didn't need to picture his "Capitalist Tool." Now I'm going to have nightmares for a week.
Re:The problem with recent ideas... (Score:3, Funny)
Depends. If you happen to be an 85 year old man who can't get an erection then it's one hell of an invention. Probably beats the internet all to hell.
Now we just need a pill that makes old men attractive to their wives again.
Re:The problem with recent ideas... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that over half the human population in this country is over 40, something that enables them to gratify themselves is a great innovation. You might not appreciate it now but you will when you are older.
Re:The problem with recent ideas... (Score:2)
Viagra is a major boom for the porn industry too...
Spandex (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spandex (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spandex (Score:2, Insightful)
On the next list (Score:2)
BUSINESS breakthroughs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BUSINESS breakthroughs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BUSINESS breakthroughs (Score:3, Informative)
In addition to the rather obvious example of nuclear technology, the theory of relativity is necessary for the functionality of satellites and therefore essential to our modern communications infrastructure, GPS systems, and the many derivative technologies that depend on these systems.
Along with the discovery, development, and application of quantum mechanics, the application of Einstein's theories play an important role in the economy. I've seen studies (I really wish I had the references handy) that estimate the percentage of the US economy dependent on Quantum Mechanics and Relativity at anywhere from 30% to 75% of GDP. The higher percentages probably include indirect benefits from semiconductors, communications, as well as applications that led from derivative research.
As previously mentioned, the only reason it wouldn't have been included directly was that the list celebrates ideas since Forbes magazine began 85 years ago, not from the turn of the century when the basis for these ideas were first established.
Yeah, but (Score:2, Informative)
However we have been improving on this, and other ideas, for the last half century. Miniturization may not be a new idea or invention, but the continued process of improving an idea is just as important as the first step. Moores Law is starting to run out with computer chips, you can expect the search for quantum computing to become all the more critical when it does.
We haven't had many new ideas lately, maybe just because we are still working on the old ones?
What of free software? (Score:5, Interesting)
the easy stuff's been done (Score:2, Insightful)
The things that are left take either much more sophisticated science, or sophisticated materials, and therefore have longer development times.
If you were to graph true innovation (NOT incremental) innovation vs. time I think that the curve is starting to flatten out. We're starting to bump into fundamental physical limitations on a lot of things: IC devices which are subject to quantum effects, the earth's gravity well wrt space travel, high T superconductors.
There's still plenty of room for invention (!), but the time and effort between true invention is becoming greater.
Umm... missed one (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... missed one (Score:2)
Others that didn't make it (Score:3, Funny)
#87 - The first post robot.
#88 - The last post robot.
#89 - Underpants gnomes (Phase 1, 2, 3, etc).
#90 - Microsoft Tablet PC.
#91 - Microsoft
Re:Others that didn't make it (Score:3, Interesting)
Business Inventions (Score:2)
For the record, this is a list of 85 business breakthroughs. People forget, especially in the gadget happy world of Slashdot, that some of the great historical inventions and innovations are theoretical and intellectual and first exist in the realm of ideas and aren't clearly profitable or worth, by objective measures, an investment of money. Forbes wants you to think about breakthrough because they have the potential to make profit, which is good because it spurs innovation. But there are other reasons to try to innovate and revolutionize that are outside of the world of consumer culture.
Fight the national One-strike law for public housing residents [viewfromtheground.com]
I was worried... (Score:2)
Viagra is on the list, whew!
Add to the list... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bet it didn't list microwave popcorn, did it? Now THAT is progress we can all get behind!
1921 - Tetraethyl Lead (Score:3, Informative)
"Thomas Midgely adds lead to gasoline to stop power-draining knocking."
As if burning fuel wasn't bad enough already add a toxic metal to it to really juice things up. It's already banned in many countries including the USA and UK.
This site [uh.edu] has further commentary and also covers his discovery of Freons that later helped damage the ozone layer including how his final invention killed him.
Surely the whole idea of such an article is to choose the inventions with the benefit of hindsight.
A sad realization, historically (Score:2)
Almost if any announcements of such were simply a segue from national news to sports. Easy to forget.
computer windows in '68 (Score:3, Interesting)
windows and a wooden stylus he calls a mouse. 1968. Can you say
"Microsoft vs Lindows trademark lawsuit"? How about 1968, can you
say that? (I knew the concept was old, but I didn't know it was
that old.)
> To a packed house at a computer conference in San Francisco,
> Stanford Research Institute's Douglas Engelbart made a dramatic
> presentation that included first-time demonstrations of onscreen
> "windows," teleconferencing and a wooden stylus device he called
> a "mouse." Engelbart didn't see much value in the peripheral, and
> neither did Stanford Research, which owned the patent and later
> licensed it to companies like Apple Computer for a $45,000
> one-time fee. Two decades later, Engelbart's in-vention was the
> PC standard.
RJ-What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Big Ideas that Changed the World (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, you meant for the better...
UNIX and Apple on the list (Score:2, Interesting)
One invention per page!!! (Score:2, Funny)
What they should have put on the list is the !@#!~ scrollbar! Why the hell did they put only one invention per page?!?!?
</rant>
Other than that, not a bad article....
Mozilla 1.3 users (Score:3, Informative)
"A Comment from Steve Forbes" (Score:2, Interesting)
Exempli Gratia:
Ray Kroc, for instance, didn't invent the fast-food phenomenon back in the 1950s. But when he saw the facility run by the McDonald brothers, he quickly grasped--as they did not--the awesomely exciting implications of their techniques in a business that was notorious for failure. The idea of creating a chain of thousands of similar restaurants that spanned the globe was, before Kroc's vision, utterly preposterous.
Alternate reading -- Ray Kroc, shrewd businessman, stumbles upon small very profitable business. He proceeds to buy their franchising rights, eventually purchasing the business and taking legal control over the use of their own name, and makes a fortune. McDonald brothers are left in the dust.
Yet all too many academics, politicos, bureaucrats and even businesspeople don't understand that risk-taking is the wellspring of our progress.
Sure, Steve, because we know that none of the great innovations of the twentieth century have involved financial or institutional support from governments, universities, or big business. All garage tinkerers...
But the most potent fiscal incentive is reducing marginal tax rates--i.e., the tax you pay on each additional dollar you earn.
Ah yes, the Steve Forbes innovation. Surprised that wasn't number #86 on the list.
Trial lawyers have progressed too far in diffusing the stark difference between fraud and honest business mistakes.
Yeah, like the Ford Pinto. Just an honest business mistake...
The fundamental concept of limited liability--you can't lose more money than the amount you invested in an entity--is being eroded.
Fun fact -- our founding fathers viewed limited liability corporations with some concern. As a result, such corporations could only be chartered by state legislatures, and had to be renewed every few years. If a corporation didn't seem to be serving the public well, state legislatures would often decharter it.
Corporate directors with M.B.A.s and considerable experience in running businesses have been discovering that in the eyes of the Securities & Exchange Commission they are not qualified to sit on audit committees, because they are not certified public accountants.
Perhaps that could be because spending a few years learning management culture at Harvard doesn't qualify you to thoroughly analyze corporate finances.
Democratic capitalism is moral.
Democratic capitalism? Is that something like military intelligence?
You won't long succeed in business if you don't serve the needs or wants of others.
Yeah, that's why Ken Lay did so poorly...
Great Ideas (Score:2)
The true test it seems will be in 30 years to see how these last 20 years stand when compared to others.
The Day the Universe Changed (Score:4, Informative)
needed fact-checking.... (Score:2)
Perspective, and Causation (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) As other posters have written: Hindsight is needed to appreciate breakthroughs which "change...lives in a profound way." If there have been any such breakthroughs, recently (no, I'm not suggesting that Segway will qualify), they haven't yet had time to be fairly judged.
2.) I think it's also worth considering that recent years, more than the past, have seen our "technological progress" move more toward improving existing tools rather than inventing new ones. The obvious example is the internet -- now that its infrastructure is present, and it has been adopted into a large percentage of homes and businesses, we're seeing real and profound development occur. Amazon, eBay, Bibliofind -- hell, even pr0n -- aren't "inventions," per se, but they certainly represent new developments which I suspect may be seen as quite impactful.
Also, the past ten or fifteen years have seen a progressive slide in our economy from product-oriented business to service-oriented business. Maybe it is true that we're not pumping out wold-changing inventions (the Foreman grill and the Popeil pasta maker aside) at the same rate we were a century ago; but I think that it has to be acknowledged that we are also offering (and consuming) services which didn't exist in the past. It's worth considering whether the rate of decline in our production of "inventions" is perhaps matched by our rate of growth in providing "services."
Finally, although I think the above is more relevant, there's the obligatory shot at the Clinton generation: One of the notions held by that generation, I think, is the idea of "quick profit" -- and specifically, that it's quicker, cheaper and generally more efficient to improve upon an existing product, rather than produce something entirely new. I think that generation, as compared to the economic drivers of the 1940s, have been more interested in taking charge of what's around them than developing anew. So if we're seeing less inventions and more "version 2.4"...well, I'm not surprised.
crib
On the last day of 1899.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Number one on that list? Not the steam engine or the telegraph, the cotton gin or the McCormick reaper, or even newcomers like electric lights and the telephone. According to the New York Times, the most important invention of the previous century was chemical "frictionless" matches.
I suppose this decision makes a little more sense in a world where most homes and businesses are still heated by coal and lit by kerosene. (And yes, I know it is a bitch to light things with flint and steel.) But I wonder how much of this article will be considered laughable or just plain stupid in 100 years.
--Gondwanaland for Gondwanans!--
#86 (Score:2)
85 ideas and some gross mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
1954 -- Telstar The first commercial communications satellite is launched
Oh, well! If History is taught in the U.S. as Forbes' "historians" show it, no wonder why Americans are so unaware of the world's reality.
Tetraethyl Lead? (Score:2)
Perhaps it was a great business innovation, but a lousy scientific innovation.
start here (Score:4, Informative)
Heavy overemphasis on IT (Score:3, Insightful)
From memory, food got three mentions (frozen, micorwaved and fast/franchised) and construction two (tract housing and Gyprock).
What about glass skinned skyscrapers? If you used the approach they used to IT, I'm sure there could be several more discrete innovations which have made our modern CBDs possible.
But beyond that, and even more essentially American (at least before the rise of China in the last decade) is the interconnected web of manufacturing industry where things like JIT and TQM, of even, in its day, the humble fax, have made a huge difference.
I dunno what I can do but chuckle when a publication like Forbes starts to see the whole world as an IT application. WIRED I can imagine.
Mr. Stein's cure? (Score:2, Funny)
Genius.
Problem is lack of original thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Might as well blow some good karma here.
Why would you post a cut and paste from 4 days ago, then why do the moderators follow along as good little sheep and mod it up as interesting and insightful?
Back off, man, I'm a scientist (Score:2)
I can recognise and sympathise with the sentiment, but:
I studied CS, and consider myself to have more of a leaning towards science than art/humanities/whatever, but who decided that only scientists are capable of designing new products or services?
Tim
Re:Lack of Recent Good Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
why listen to Ben Stein?!!? (Score:3, Flamebait)
This is the same guy who hosts the pointless trivia
show on Comedy Central "Win Ben Stein's Money".
If that's not clearly exactly the sort of crap that he is saying has led to the decline of the US, then he's not reading his own essay.
The show is all about getting some $$$ for answering some pointless questions and winning something for nothing.
His essay clearly highlights a lot of important issues, but his life and lifestyle put him in the "part of the problem" side.
Re:why listen to Ben Stein?!!? (Score:2, Insightful)
His essay clearly highlights a lot of important issues, but his life and lifestyle put him in the "part of the problem" side.
Part of the problem? C'mon. The guy is trying to promote intelligence by making it seem fun and cool. It completely agrees with near everything he says in the article. Rather than glamorizing people who do nothing for the millions they get (actors, etc), he insteads rewards people for KNOWING something and working to get some KNOWLEDGE, rather than just being a pretty face. Yes, he does it in a way that is designed to attract a younger audience, it's called being part of the solution.
Sitting around writing articles doesn't get you anywhere. Actually going out and showing people what a brain can accomplish, rather than just using their body, may actually make an effect. I'm not calling the guy some sort of savior, it is just a stupid cable show, but I do not think it in any way goes against his general principles.
Don't judge people just based on your preconceived notions of television.
This isn't a valid rebuttal (Score:2)
I'm not trying to pick on this single post, because there hasn't been a single valid rebuttal on this thread, actually. It doesn't matter that I copied and pasted the post and it doesn't matter that Ben Stein hosts a game show. The points are still strong, and nobody seems to want to actually deal with the issues head on. That's exactly what prevents innovation -- lack of desire or ability to solve problems.
Re:why listen to Ben Stein?!!? (Score:3, Insightful)
show on Comedy Central "Win Ben Stein's Money".
Yes, let's not discuss the ideas. Let's attack the source instead.
The winnings in Ben Steins show are paltry. The maximum the winner can make is $5,000 - hardly a sum of money you can get rich of. On the other hand, the show provides entertainment (which is the purpose of TV) while delving into the knowledge of history, politics, art, religion and science.
Insightful?!!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Something that starts off with this line can be considered "Insightful"??
zrodney is attacking the article because it is written by someone who he says is apparently "evil" because he has a game show. That reeks of a Troll to me. I guess not to everyone else.
Lets ignore the fact that his gameshow (like some others) actually rely on the knowledge and intelligence of the contestants to win money and prizes... not just the "luck of the spin of the wheel". Lets also ignore the fact that Ben Stein is a highly intelligent man who has written speeches for U.S. Presidents and presidential candidates. Lets mod this guy up because he talks about the author of the article "being part of the problem with society"... which really has nothing to do with the article at all.
Re:why listen to Ben Stein?!!? (Score:3, Insightful)
show on Comedy Central "Win Ben Stein's Money".
Yes, and the reason it isn't on CBS is that it is, in reality, acutally, COMEDY! It's a joke, he knows it, the contestants know it. It's not like these people are the same ignorant dirtsticks that are STILL showing up for The Price Is Right after 30 frickin years. These social rejects havent left the confort of their sofa in so long, they honestly can't tell that a can Lysol is 2.59? Jesus!
At least it shows that someone has a sense of humor, and a pretty good one in fact. Just look at the difference between Adam Corolla on The Man Show, and Adam Corolla on LoveLine (NOT the eMpTyVee version). While he clearly has a good time on both, one is very clearly a joke, and the other sometimes offers some pretty serious advice to people who need it.
I can't say I ENTIRELY agree (Score:2)
2) Encourage the making of laws and rules by trial lawyers and sympathetic judges, especially through class actions.
As opposed to letting it be made by a morally bankrupt, corrupt congress which is primarilly elected based on their ability to:
1) Kow-tow to the incredibly popular president, regardless of what he's actually doing
and
2) Raise cash from huge corporations?
I'd much rather have intelligent judges legislate from the bench (even if I disagree with them) than letting CEOs legislate from the board room.
Besides, this is ONE of the ways that things can enter law, and if it's really WRONG congress can always overturn it.
I always love these "10 point" lists. They are ALWAYS oversimplifications of an incredibly complex problem (which can itself be simplified to "People are stupid")
Re:Lack of Recent Good Ideas (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know (Score:3, Informative)
I actually saw some Food Network show that mentioned it. It was a really big deal at the time, although I can't remember why. Probably because kids could no longer whine: "Waa! You cut him a bigger piece!"
Re:Anyone know (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anyone know (Score:3, Funny)
Multiplane Camera (Score:2, Informative)
Re:War (Score:2)
Why is that sad? Conflict motivates.
How many animals out there improve their existence more by cooperation than by conflict?
Not sad, not happy, just a fact of the human condition.
Re:Invention idea (Score:2)
Do not taunt Cellphone Zapper.
Re:Painful (Score:2)
1939-1947 [forbes.com]
1947-1955 [forbes.com]
1956-1958 [forbes.com]
1959-1971 [forbes.com]
1972-1987 [forbes.com]
1987-2000 [forbes.com]