Quote - Don't confuse the task with the method, xenophonz. And realize, as well, that by the time Apollo launched most space technology was fairly mature; we have made only incremental improvements since on the majority of the technologies Apollo used. Were we to attempt an identical mission today, we would likely use vastly similar hardware. Same for engine performance...even fuel ignition and electronics provide only small gains. The majority of the high-tech stuff under the hood of a modern car is not to make it more efficient; it is to make it less polluting. And as for the mileage -- my 1986 Toyota gets better mileage than most of what I share the road with. Why? Because it weighs a third of what those SUV's do!

Oh, I'd never dream of confusing tasks & methods.  Certain elementary concepts lay at the base of many things.  We haven't improved much on the core principle of the wheel since it was invented.  The wheel is the wheel -- whether it's on a chariot, a wagon, or an automobile.

But....then you start getting into matters like pneumatic tires, advanced materials, tread patterns, run-flat military designs, specialty designs, space shuttle landing gear wheels -- on and on.  The basic principle behind the wheels on the space shuttle remains essentially the same as the principle behind the wheels which were mounted on an ancient Egyptian chariot.  But are they the same thing?  Hardly.  Likewise, any new Apollo-esque craft won't be the same as the original Apollos.  No more than a mid-60's era Phantom fighter is the same thing as an F-22 Raptor. 

Quote - The problem facing small computer users -- like the members of this forum -- is that the computer industry is supporting itself on a program of constant obsolescence.

And that can't be helped.  Although there is without doubt some deliberate strategy behind what used to be called "planned obsolecence" -- new developments will only happen as they happen.  It's another of those core principles that's simply in the nature of things.  They didn't have access to dual-core processors 20 years ago.  So the PC's from that era aren't quite able to do the job any longer.  Some obsolecence is planned -- but obsolecence happens anyway.  Even without anyone deliberately planning to help it along.

Quote -  We haven't made anything but incremental improvements to word-processing since the first memory typewriter.

Once again, this is one of those "basic principle of the wheel" type of issues.  Writing down a written language is writing down a written language.  The basic task will always be the same.  But personally, I'd rather type it out on my PC than press a sharpened wooden stick into a soft clay tablet.  Even though the ancient clay tablets can still be read today; while our electronic PC text most definitely won't survive for a similar period of time.  Archaeologists 3000 years from now won't be reading our e-mails.........so perhaps we should consider going back to using clay tablets........?  Nahhhh.

There's only just so much that you can do to improve upon the task of word processing.  Unless if you want the machine to do creative writing for you.

Quote - In a way the argument that better renders are automatically better art is like arguing that oils always trump watercolor always trump pastels always trump ink always trumps pencil. And by extension, no picture could possibly be as good as a movie (pictures do not move or have sound), and no novel could possible be as good as a picture. And of course the other buried assumption is that it is better to do a paint-by-numbers that has been blocked by a professional, than to paint a scene from scratch. At the reductio ad absurdum of this line of thinking, since few of us can paint as well as the Dutch Masters, we are better off returning the oils to the counter and buying a big glossy book of reproductions instead.

 

Well.....show me where anyone made the assertion that "better renders are better art" and then I'll be able to better follow your line of reasoning here.

A pencil drawing is in no way artistically inferior to an oil painting -- although some would think that it is.  But the analogy doesn't apply.  Differing media don't correspond to differing software packages.  We don't use the first published version of Photoshop anymore.  But we'll still be using basic pencils on into the forseeable future of mankind.

A nail is still a nail.  Whether it was used to drive into wood yesterday; or whether it was used to drive into wood in ancient Babylon.  Some basic things don't change.  But other things most certainly do change -- and software/hardware is one of those.  shrug  Try running Photoshop CS2 on an Apple IIe -- if you like.  But a pencil will always be able to write on paper, no matter how 'technologically advanced' the paper is.

Quote - In short, we don't always want those things a powerful computer can add.

Nor do we always need a fancier plasma-screen HDTV sitting in our living room.  But it sure can be nice to have vs. that old Zenith.

Quote - But I understand, respect, and support those who have realized that Poser 4 is better for the tasks they face. I also own a handsaw. Although I use power tools more frequently, it is a very, very good handsaw (Japanese of course) and is in those special times the more appropriate tool. Only in the world of software would I be physically prevented from using my handsaw after I had bought my first power tool, and laughed at in forums when I complained about what had happened.

 

Oh.....I've not questioned anyone's "right" to do as they individually please vis-a-vis hanging onto P4.  I'm merely pointing out the fact that while some few people might enjoy starting camp fires by rubbing two sticks together -- most of us prefer to use matches and/or lighters.  Even though the basic principle of fire hasn't been improved upon much.  

Something To Do At 3:00AM