My mobile device IS my desktop today. It's called a laptop. I do have to worry about stealing it, just like folks steal iPhones too. Or even from the cloud.
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
This is actually a concept from the early 90's. See the Starfire video from Sun. How odd though that your vision of the future is that of the past.
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in mobile computing is also the human, not just the technology.
The human form dictates what types of interaction are optimal. No amount of technology will change that.
My favorite analogy? The door knob and door handle. We will likely never find better form factors for physically interacting with doors.
That isn't to say that laptops are the final evolution of computing for factors. But rather, tablets come with inconveniences that are inherent to their form, not a technological shortcoming.
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in mobile computing is also the human, not just the technology.
The human form dictates what types of interaction are optimal. No amount of technology will change that.
My favorite analogy? The door knob and door handle. We will likely never find better form factors for physically interacting with doors.
That isn't to say that laptops are the final evolution of computing for factors. But rather, tablets come with inconveniences that are inherent to their form, not a technological shortcoming.
Not true sir, the best form factor is the one that does not need to exist! That's the kind of food for thought that drives ingenuity in the first place.
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
Except when I need a "desktop in my pocket" I need more than what a phone sized device can provide. Unless it has input capabilities equivalent to a desktop. My point was simple. Increasing the capabilities of a small device without increasing the ability to interact with that device doesn't make it usable as a "desktop replacement".
Take netbooks for example. In terms of computational capability these already are "desktop replacements" in as much as these are PIII class machines. What they lacked in the 7" and 9" versions was the ability to comfortably input large amounts of information (aka text) in those form factors because of small keyboards.
Hence 10" and larger netbooks. The "simplest minor improvement" required is not simple nor minor.
Besides, as you state, most people don't carry around laptops. Which implies they don't need desktops in their pockets as much as devices optimized for content consumption rather than content creation.
So none of your stated points indicate any need that cannot be solved today by carrying around a light weight laptop or high end netbook which few people do. Which is the expected size of the Apple tablet (7"-10") anyway.
So where is this perceived need to have a "desktop in your pocket"? Which you don't define as much as handwave anyway. The iPhone has more compute power and storage than my old desktops from the 80s.
Quote:
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
And you don't understand human factors or computing. But hey, don't feel too bad...well, actually, if I were you, I might feel pretty bad.
Quote:
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
No, just that your "idea" has been overtaken by events and technologies so that these kiosks no longer server any purpose given that netbooks and laptops are cheap and light and provide everything your imagined kiosk might provide for mobile computation needs.
In a few (as in 4-5) years time, you'll find notebooks and tablets with built in micro-projectors like we now have built in webcams so even a 10" tablet can have the equivalent of a 30" ACD anywhere you have 30" worth of display area. Then it would make sense to use most of that 10" space for a tactile multitouch input surface for keyboarding.
Would they then be desktop replacements you take everywhere? No, unless you think man bags are going to be all the rage in a few years. A 10" device is still too big to take everywhere and content creation is still key to being a "desktop replacement".
Not true sir, the best form factor is the one that does not need to exist! That's the kind of food for thought that drives ingenuity in the first place.
I misread your post...i suppose that the automatic door trumps the door knob to some extent.
I misread your post...i suppose that the automatic door trumps the door knob to some extent.
The automatic door removes interaction altogether... which may or may not be desirable depending on usage.
But really my point was that some design constraints/decisions are dictated by human needs rather than technological limitations. In other words, there are certain things no technological advancement will change.
Another example would be audio recordings vs audio/video recordings. While plain old audio is more primitive, there are certain environments where radio will always be preferable to TV no matter if display screens become free and the thickness of a piece of paper.
My take is that tablets have their place but that it is a niche as compared to the form factors popular today. When tablets are cheap, sure, everyone will want one. But the vast majority of people, if having to choose one or the other, will stick to the more flexible form factors already popular today. This is why I believe price will determine if the rumored apple tablet is a success. It will only be successful if the masses can justify purchasing one for purely auxiliary computing purposes.
Let’s get back to dfiler’s original premise regarding the human form. Using the door as an example, there is a reason why doors have gotten taller over the centuries. We’ve gotten taller as a whole due to higher protein diets.
Doors are also taller than they are wider because we walk upright. If we crawled on all fours they could be 4 feet tall, or 2 feet x 2 feet if we slid on the ground, or even wider than they are tall if we rolled on our sides everywhere we go. Of course, those sound silly because our form has found the most appropriate design paradigm which is unlikely to dramatically change.
PS: Extra credit: Can anyone tell me how an invention can be too successful. Hint1: The Chinese discovery of porcelain. Hint2: Last week’s episode of QI.
Revolving doors did become much more common with the advent of skyscrapers. But obviously they aren't suitable for most places we find doors. And really, the proper analogy involves door knobs and handles, not the doors themselves.
Despite my tendency to rain on the tablet hype parade, if they're cheap enough, i'll be buying one...
I dream of the day that home-theater/home-automation remote control unification nirvana is finally achieved.
It?s all OS X. iPhone OS, AppleTV OS and Mac OS. Adding a value of ?10? to a new version of the O and being pedantic about what Apple officially calls it means nothing. They all use a Darwin foundation and I think they all have the same four abstraction layers: the Core OS layer, the Core Services layer, the Media layer, and the Cocoa Touch layer.
It?s a reduced version of Mac OS X with unneeded stuff stripped out and new frameworks like Quicktime X built to accommodate needs, which was then added to added to Snow Leopard. For all intense and purposes it?s OS X or Apple OS or the same basic OS with frameworks, drivers, apps, and aUI altered to make it ideal for the device. Any Apple tablet will surely do the same thing and will be Table OS, their 4th distinct version within the OS X family.
I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand I have a problem with using same name for two OSs that run on different hardware, have different GUI and have no compatibility (as in installing same software, drivers etc).
Might be because of my PC background, but when you say OS family, I think in line of Windows Vista or Windows 7 OS family - bunch of different versions, but basically running same software on the same hardware.
iPhone OS might be copying structure of OSX to some extend, but differences are too big for me to really ally it with OSX.
I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand I have a problem with using same name for two OSs that run on different hardware, have different GUI and have no compatibility (as in installing same software, drivers etc).
Might be because of my PC background, but when you say OS family, I think in line of Windows Vista or Windows 7 OS family - bunch of different versions, but basically running same software on the same hardware.
iPhone OS might be copying structure of OSX to some extend, but differences are too big for me to really ally it with OSX.
Look at OS X like Linux, iPhone OS like Android and Mac OS like Kubuntu (I prefer KDE ).
For most people, e-ink and incredibly limited functionality will not be worth the cost of a kindle when compared to an Apple tablet. You don't have to be in the same product category to takes sales away from another product. Of course some people will probably stick with e-ink devices much like some people stick with dedicated pmp's, but the vast majority probably wont.
True... but at this point, I believe that Amazon is charging fat premium on Kindle because... they can. If iTablet turns to be good ebook reader (as in good ebook deals, usable battery life, good daylight visibility etc) Amazon should be able to dramatically reduce Kindle's price and still make money from books, not unlike game console manufacturers are often giving consoles with hardly or no profit at all, but recover from games sale.
PS: Extra credit: Can anyone tell me how an invention can be too successful. Hint1: The Chinese discovery of porcelain. Hint2: Last week?s episode of QI.
Alas, we don't get QI in the states so that's not much of a hint. So what was too successful about the Chinese discovery of porcelain? It doesn't seem to preclude later development of better material...
Alas, we don't get QI in the states so that's not much of a hint. So what was too successful about the Chinese discovery of porcelain? It doesn't seem to preclude later development of better material...
Stephen Fry stated that China’s discovery and refinement of porcelain was so successful that glass didn’t come along until much later. I think he said by the Europeans. The use of glass allows for a chemically neutral, waterproof container you could see through, telescopes, microscopes, windows, reading glasses, etc. I can’t find anything online to back up his statement but I found the notion very intriguing. Can an advancement in one area be too successful as to hinder other advancements?
Stephen Fry stated that China?s discovery and refinement of porcelain was so successful that glass didn?t come along until much later. I think he said by the Europeans. The use of glass allows for a chemically neutral, waterproof container you could see through, telescopes, microscopes, windows, reading glasses, etc. I can?t find anything online to back up his statement but I found the notion very intriguing. Can an advancement in one area be too successful as to hinder other advancements?
PS: I?m in the states, too.
"The oldest fragments of glass vases (evidence of the origins of the hollow glass industry), however, date back to the 16th century BC and were found in Mesopotamia. Hollow glass production was also evolving around this time in Egypt, and there is evidence of other ancient glassmaking activities emerging independently in Mycenae (Greece), China and North Tyrol.
...
During the reign of the emperor Augustus, glass objects began to appear throughout Italy, in France, Germany and Switzerland. Roman glass has even been found as far afield as China, shipped there along the silk routes."
Mmm...I would think that cultural issues hindered the sciences more in China than any other developments. The telescope was invented in the 17th century and quickly imported into China by the Jesuits.
if we were doing mythbusters I'd say this glass theory was a bust...
"The oldest fragments of glass vases (evidence of the origins of the hollow glass industry), however, date back to the 16th century BC and were found in Mesopotamia. Hollow glass production was also evolving around this time in Egypt, and there is evidence of other ancient glassmaking activities emerging independently in Mycenae (Greece), China and North Tyrol.
...
During the reign of the emperor Augustus, glass objects began to appear throughout Italy, in France, Germany and Switzerland. Roman glass has even been found as far afield as China, shipped there along the silk routes."
Mmm...I would think that cultural issues hindered the sciences more in China than any other developments. The telescope was invented in the 17th century and quickly imported into China by the Jesuits.
if we were doing mythbusters I'd say this glass theory was a bust...
Nice find. My initial query was an attempt to get more info on this subject and I did start my previous response with ?Stephen Fry stated?? specifically because I couldn?t verify the data to any degree and it did seem somewhat suspect as stated. Part of it makes some sense, but I was most intrigued by one invention working so well as to prevent the necessity for better tools being sought out.
I?ll try to upload that segment to YouTube shortly.
Here is more detailed info from the show with YouTube video of segment that is likely to be yanked down rather quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Fry
The invention of the teacup changed the course of Chinese history, because it was invented so early.
The thing is that the Chinese never drank wine and people in the West liked to drink it in glass. The invention of glass meant that we also had the technology of lens grinding, telescopes and microscopes. The invention of spectacles meant that intellectuals and scientists had an extra 15-20 years of a reading and active life. Also came the invention of beakers, flasks and retorts, which was useful because glass is chemically neutral.
Between the 14th century and the 19th century, no glass was made in China. It also meant that they had no mirrors and their windows were made out of paper, which meant they had dark houses. So, the point is that since they liked drinking tea from the teacup, they never bothered to try to invent glass.
Would the buyer of one of these tablets be someone who already has a MacBook and / or a Mac, or someone who has neither?
And is it geared to special types of individuals rather than mainstream ones? In other words, someone who might have a Wacom drawing tablet...would they migrate to this?
Comments
My mobile device IS my desktop today. It's called a laptop. I do have to worry about stealing it, just like folks steal iPhones too. Or even from the cloud.
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
This is actually a concept from the early 90's. See the Starfire video from Sun. How odd though that your vision of the future is that of the past.
http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfire.mp4
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in mobile computing is also the human, not just the technology.
The human form dictates what types of interaction are optimal. No amount of technology will change that.
My favorite analogy? The door knob and door handle. We will likely never find better form factors for physically interacting with doors.
That isn't to say that laptops are the final evolution of computing for factors. But rather, tablets come with inconveniences that are inherent to their form, not a technological shortcoming.
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in mobile computing is also the human, not just the technology.
The human form dictates what types of interaction are optimal. No amount of technology will change that.
My favorite analogy? The door knob and door handle. We will likely never find better form factors for physically interacting with doors.
That isn't to say that laptops are the final evolution of computing for factors. But rather, tablets come with inconveniences that are inherent to their form, not a technological shortcoming.
Not true sir, the best form factor is the one that does not need to exist! That's the kind of food for thought that drives ingenuity in the first place.
Sometimes, the seemingly simplest minor improvements can trigger massive changes in human behavior. Perhaps the mobile device IS your laptop. But you are assuming your usage pattern represents most people. It actually doesn't. Most people you see out in the streets don't walk around with their laptops in tow, what they do carry around all the time are their phones. So just because the laptop as the mobile device works well enough for you doesn't mean that the 'desktop in your pocket' isn't going to be attractive to a lot of other people.
Except when I need a "desktop in my pocket" I need more than what a phone sized device can provide. Unless it has input capabilities equivalent to a desktop. My point was simple. Increasing the capabilities of a small device without increasing the ability to interact with that device doesn't make it usable as a "desktop replacement".
Take netbooks for example. In terms of computational capability these already are "desktop replacements" in as much as these are PIII class machines. What they lacked in the 7" and 9" versions was the ability to comfortably input large amounts of information (aka text) in those form factors because of small keyboards.
Hence 10" and larger netbooks. The "simplest minor improvement" required is not simple nor minor.
Besides, as you state, most people don't carry around laptops. Which implies they don't need desktops in their pockets as much as devices optimized for content consumption rather than content creation.
So none of your stated points indicate any need that cannot be solved today by carrying around a light weight laptop or high end netbook which few people do. Which is the expected size of the Apple tablet (7"-10") anyway.
So where is this perceived need to have a "desktop in your pocket"? Which you don't define as much as handwave anyway. The iPhone has more compute power and storage than my old desktops from the 80s.
But hey, don't feel too bad, mistaking the anecdotal for universal is a common error. Most people do not understand basic statistical principles.
And you don't understand human factors or computing. But hey, don't feel too bad...well, actually, if I were you, I might feel pretty bad.
That is just a cheap shot argument through logical fallacy. People have been talking about landing on Mars for at least a hundred years, shall we now rule out anyone contemplating that idea as mired in the past? Because it was thought of in the past but never came to fruition then an idea is bunk?
No, just that your "idea" has been overtaken by events and technologies so that these kiosks no longer server any purpose given that netbooks and laptops are cheap and light and provide everything your imagined kiosk might provide for mobile computation needs.
In a few (as in 4-5) years time, you'll find notebooks and tablets with built in micro-projectors like we now have built in webcams so even a 10" tablet can have the equivalent of a 30" ACD anywhere you have 30" worth of display area. Then it would make sense to use most of that 10" space for a tactile multitouch input surface for keyboarding.
Would they then be desktop replacements you take everywhere? No, unless you think man bags are going to be all the rage in a few years. A 10" device is still too big to take everywhere and content creation is still key to being a "desktop replacement".
Not true sir, the best form factor is the one that does not need to exist! That's the kind of food for thought that drives ingenuity in the first place.
I misread your post...i suppose that the automatic door trumps the door knob to some extent.
I misread your post...i suppose that the automatic door trumps the door knob to some extent.
The automatic door removes interaction altogether... which may or may not be desirable depending on usage.
But really my point was that some design constraints/decisions are dictated by human needs rather than technological limitations. In other words, there are certain things no technological advancement will change.
Another example would be audio recordings vs audio/video recordings. While plain old audio is more primitive, there are certain environments where radio will always be preferable to TV no matter if display screens become free and the thickness of a piece of paper.
My take is that tablets have their place but that it is a niche as compared to the form factors popular today. When tablets are cheap, sure, everyone will want one. But the vast majority of people, if having to choose one or the other, will stick to the more flexible form factors already popular today. This is why I believe price will determine if the rumored apple tablet is a success. It will only be successful if the masses can justify purchasing one for purely auxiliary computing purposes.
Doors are also taller than they are wider because we walk upright. If we crawled on all fours they could be 4 feet tall, or 2 feet x 2 feet if we slid on the ground, or even wider than they are tall if we rolled on our sides everywhere we go. Of course, those sound silly because our form has found the most appropriate design paradigm which is unlikely to dramatically change.
PS: Extra credit: Can anyone tell me how an invention can be too successful. Hint1: The Chinese discovery of porcelain. Hint2: Last week’s episode of QI.
Despite my tendency to rain on the tablet hype parade, if they're cheap enough, i'll be buying one...
I dream of the day that home-theater/home-automation remote control unification nirvana is finally achieved.
It?s all OS X. iPhone OS, AppleTV OS and Mac OS. Adding a value of ?10? to a new version of the O and being pedantic about what Apple officially calls it means nothing. They all use a Darwin foundation and I think they all have the same four abstraction layers: the Core OS layer, the Core Services layer, the Media layer, and the Cocoa Touch layer.
It?s a reduced version of Mac OS X with unneeded stuff stripped out and new frameworks like Quicktime X built to accommodate needs, which was then added to added to Snow Leopard. For all intense and purposes it?s OS X or Apple OS or the same basic OS with frameworks, drivers, apps, and aUI altered to make it ideal for the device. Any Apple tablet will surely do the same thing and will be Table OS, their 4th distinct version within the OS X family.
I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand I have a problem with using same name for two OSs that run on different hardware, have different GUI and have no compatibility (as in installing same software, drivers etc).
Might be because of my PC background, but when you say OS family, I think in line of Windows Vista or Windows 7 OS family - bunch of different versions, but basically running same software on the same hardware.
iPhone OS might be copying structure of OSX to some extend, but differences are too big for me to really ally it with OSX.
I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand I have a problem with using same name for two OSs that run on different hardware, have different GUI and have no compatibility (as in installing same software, drivers etc).
Might be because of my PC background, but when you say OS family, I think in line of Windows Vista or Windows 7 OS family - bunch of different versions, but basically running same software on the same hardware.
iPhone OS might be copying structure of OSX to some extend, but differences are too big for me to really ally it with OSX.
Look at OS X like Linux, iPhone OS like Android and Mac OS like Kubuntu (I prefer KDE
For most people, e-ink and incredibly limited functionality will not be worth the cost of a kindle when compared to an Apple tablet. You don't have to be in the same product category to takes sales away from another product. Of course some people will probably stick with e-ink devices much like some people stick with dedicated pmp's, but the vast majority probably wont.
True... but at this point, I believe that Amazon is charging fat premium on Kindle because... they can. If iTablet turns to be good ebook reader (as in good ebook deals, usable battery life, good daylight visibility etc) Amazon should be able to dramatically reduce Kindle's price and still make money from books, not unlike game console manufacturers are often giving consoles with hardly or no profit at all, but recover from games sale.
PS: Extra credit: Can anyone tell me how an invention can be too successful. Hint1: The Chinese discovery of porcelain. Hint2: Last week?s episode of QI.
Alas, we don't get QI in the states so that's not much of a hint. So what was too successful about the Chinese discovery of porcelain? It doesn't seem to preclude later development of better material...
Alas, we don't get QI in the states so that's not much of a hint. So what was too successful about the Chinese discovery of porcelain? It doesn't seem to preclude later development of better material...
Stephen Fry stated that China’s discovery and refinement of porcelain was so successful that glass didn’t come along until much later. I think he said by the Europeans. The use of glass allows for a chemically neutral, waterproof container you could see through, telescopes, microscopes, windows, reading glasses, etc. I can’t find anything online to back up his statement but I found the notion very intriguing. Can an advancement in one area be too successful as to hinder other advancements?
PS: I’m in the states, too.
Stephen Fry stated that China?s discovery and refinement of porcelain was so successful that glass didn?t come along until much later. I think he said by the Europeans. The use of glass allows for a chemically neutral, waterproof container you could see through, telescopes, microscopes, windows, reading glasses, etc. I can?t find anything online to back up his statement but I found the notion very intriguing. Can an advancement in one area be too successful as to hinder other advancements?
PS: I?m in the states, too.
"The oldest fragments of glass vases (evidence of the origins of the hollow glass industry), however, date back to the 16th century BC and were found in Mesopotamia. Hollow glass production was also evolving around this time in Egypt, and there is evidence of other ancient glassmaking activities emerging independently in Mycenae (Greece), China and North Tyrol.
...
During the reign of the emperor Augustus, glass objects began to appear throughout Italy, in France, Germany and Switzerland. Roman glass has even been found as far afield as China, shipped there along the silk routes."
http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html
And wikipedia has an entry on ancient chinese glass and dates earliest chinese glass to the zhou dynasty (1046 BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_glass
Mmm...I would think that cultural issues hindered the sciences more in China than any other developments. The telescope was invented in the 17th century and quickly imported into China by the Jesuits.
if we were doing mythbusters I'd say this glass theory was a bust...
"The oldest fragments of glass vases (evidence of the origins of the hollow glass industry), however, date back to the 16th century BC and were found in Mesopotamia. Hollow glass production was also evolving around this time in Egypt, and there is evidence of other ancient glassmaking activities emerging independently in Mycenae (Greece), China and North Tyrol.
...
During the reign of the emperor Augustus, glass objects began to appear throughout Italy, in France, Germany and Switzerland. Roman glass has even been found as far afield as China, shipped there along the silk routes."
http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html
And wikipedia has an entry on ancient chinese glass and dates earliest chinese glass to the zhou dynasty (1046 BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_glass
Mmm...I would think that cultural issues hindered the sciences more in China than any other developments. The telescope was invented in the 17th century and quickly imported into China by the Jesuits.
if we were doing mythbusters I'd say this glass theory was a bust...
Nice find. My initial query was an attempt to get more info on this subject and I did start my previous response with ?Stephen Fry stated?? specifically because I couldn?t verify the data to any degree and it did seem somewhat suspect as stated. Part of it makes some sense, but I was most intrigued by one invention working so well as to prevent the necessity for better tools being sought out.
I?ll try to upload that segment to YouTube shortly.
The invention of the teacup changed the course of Chinese history, because it was invented so early.
The thing is that the Chinese never drank wine and people in the West liked to drink it in glass. The invention of glass meant that we also had the technology of lens grinding, telescopes and microscopes. The invention of spectacles meant that intellectuals and scientists had an extra 15-20 years of a reading and active life. Also came the invention of beakers, flasks and retorts, which was useful because glass is chemically neutral.
Between the 14th century and the 19th century, no glass was made in China. It also meant that they had no mirrors and their windows were made out of paper, which meant they had dark houses. So, the point is that since they liked drinking tea from the teacup, they never bothered to try to invent glass.
Prepare to see Kindles flood ebay a day after Apple's tablet release. If you ever wanted a Kindle for cheap, you're about to hit the jackpot.
2 MILLI VANILLI greatest hits cds for one kindle
On the topic of the screen. I was not for the rumors of the 7inch tablet. I just didnt think that would fly.
so your first post was what ??
10 in??
And is it geared to special types of individuals rather than mainstream ones? In other words, someone who might have a Wacom drawing tablet...would they migrate to this?