Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dvorak on Our Modern World

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the always-weird-with-you-around-john dept.

420

DigitalDame2 writes "If people from the 1920s suddenly landed in the here and now, they'd probably find modern technology a bit weird. Take digital cameras for instance. Nobody would have predicted that most people would now take pictures by holding the camera out in front of them and look at the preview screen to frame a shot. Then there's the iPod phenomenon. Is anyone's music collection that interesting? How many people are being deafened by these things, and what kind of a public health disaster is this? Take a stroll through our modern world with John C. Dvorak's hilarious take."

cancel ×

420 comments

Mislinked? (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480659)


Take a stroll through our modern world with John C. Dvorak's hilarious take.

Darn, the summary is mislinked to typical Dvorak filler. Where's the 'hilarious take'?

Grumpy Old Man (4, Funny)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480755)

"I'm old and I'm not happy. Everything today is improved and I don't like it. I hate it! In my day we didn't have hair dryers. If you wanted to blow dry your hair you stood outside during a hurricane. Your hair was dry but you had a sharp piece of wood driven clear through your skull and that's the way it was and you liked it! You loved it."

The "hilarious" is what he missed. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480765)

Yeah, someone from the 1920's would be amazed at the people walking around while talking on their cell phones ... and by seeing people of color eating side by side with white folk.

Women in the workforce? Dressed like chippies? With skirts above the knee?

Kids with metal stuck through their skin?

Dude! A magic talking box would be the LEAST of the shocks that person would have.

Re:Mislinked? (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480790)

This is obviously sone new definition of "hilarious" that we weren't previously made aware of.

Re:Mislinked? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480881)

Dvorak couldn't manage to be funny in a clown suit that was on fire....well, I might laugh at that, but it would be a different kind of laughter, I think.

Re:Mislinked? (1)

XsynackX (775111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480922)

I think they would be amazed at the fact that now through an electronic network millions of people can read the extremely lame, boring, and out-of-touch ramblings of some idiot who writes an article on a topic that could be interesting, but somehow manages to make it pointless and boring.

Seriously . . . I can think of a million things that people from the 20s would find amazing, interesting, or weird in today's society . . . yet Dvorak managed to write a completely boring and poorly written article. Did anyone else feel like they wasted 5 minutes of their time reading that crap?

Re:Mislinked? (3, Insightful)

JHromadka (88188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480933)

The submitter links themself to pcmag.com. I'm sure they're one of Dvorak's lackies.

Re:Mislinked? (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480976)

Where's the 'hilarious take'?

That was a misprint. It should have been "hilarious John C. Dvorak's take".

To the future! (5, Funny)

Emrikol (21551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480669)

Let's not forget

Re:To the future! (5, Funny)

Emrikol (21551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480684)

mult-page articles.

*cough*

Re:To the future! (1)

wixardy (950752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480791)

There is nothing in this article, aside from observations of one man on today's technology. A time traveler to the future would be overwhelmed for a while at our tech, just as one to the past would be at the "lack of" technology. This article contains absolutely nothing of value to anyone, especially the mysterious 1920s people.

btw how are ipods a health issue? --wix

Re:To the future! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480827)

btw how are ipods a health issue?

No more than rock concerts or boom-boom cars I would suspect; this has been a standard worry since the begining of rock&roll, that the kids are damaging their hearing by turning up their personal music devices too loud. There may be some truth in it, but I don't think a large enough percentage of the population does it to worry about.

Re:To the future! (1)

charleste (537078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480971)

When the Sony Walkman (cassette) came out when I was a kid, the FDA, parental groups, et. al. were screaming we would be a generation of deaf kids. Then my older brothers told me similar things about closed headphones in the 70's. Same old - same old. People never seem to remember that they were just like the younger generation and they lived to tell about it. Oh, and you kids out there? You're not original :-P It's been done.

The last line is the best part (3, Insightful)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480672)

Reader input is appreciated.


I am so tempted to mention in his forum that he left out "asking a bunch of random monkeys to type in comments on stories through the internet" but I decided to be a Slashmonkey today instead.

Missing some other stuff from the 1920's. (1)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480673)

Like weird rambling twits being locked up by the State and electrocuted back to "health".

Re:Missing some other stuff from the 1920's. (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480691)

Or Al Capone shooting my brother with an Uzi submachine gun and stealing his hotrod (Wesley Willis anyone?).

Re:Missing some other stuff from the 1920's. (3, Funny)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480839)

Wesley Willis anyone?

no thanks, I'm trying to quit.

Re:Missing some other stuff from the 1920's. (3, Informative)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480905)

Dude, Uzi's weren't even invented back then. Al wasted his stoolies with a decent, American-made Thompson submachine gun (the infamous "Tommy gun [nfatoys.com] ").

Not even remotely funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480679)

Nothin to see here, move along. It's almost a bad rant, same type Seinfeld used to make, but at least his were funny.

Go Home (3, Funny)

Ritalin16 (867772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480680)

If this guy thinks the 21st century is so weird, maybe he should build a time machine and go home :O

Ancient (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480682)

No doubt Dvorak was around during the 20s, so he should know.

Have Things REALLY Changed All That Much? (5, Funny)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480683)

I mean, twenty years ago or so, who would've thought that we'd still be reading John C. Dvorak columns filled with intellectual self-puffery?

No not really. (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480771)

I honestly don't think technology has changed all that significantly in the past years. Change has been basically incremental in our modern society. Take someone from the 1920's and he would point out that a car is a horseless carriage.

Of course technology is incremental... (2, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480974)

But that same someone from the 20s would probably be surprised that his horseless carriage can now run off from corn oil. And doesn't have a carburator. And can tell you where you are going. And tell you when it's time for a tuneup.

Not to even mention al the medical technical innovations that have come along. Another person's heart in someone else?!? Impossible, he would say. Twenty years ago that was a VERY (as opposed to today's very) risky operation. Yet it's a common operation now. If I were from the twenties and transplanted in the here-and-now, medicine is what would blow my mind.

Re:Have Things REALLY Changed All That Much? (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480782)

No joke, this guy is one of the most worthless internet contributors with a solid distribution channel. Why the hell does he rate /.ing for an article any articulate 8th grader could have put together?

-Rick

Re:Have Things REALLY Changed All That Much? (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480786)

Slashdot has been suffering from a severe lack of pseudo-intellectual self-puffery since the departure of Jon Katz. It's a relief to finally see a return to useless columns by self-important blowhards on Slashdot. In fact, have Katz and Dvorak ever been seen in the same room together? Hmmm...

Re:Have Things REALLY Changed All That Much? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480822)

He did, and that's all that matters.

Obligitory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480694)

John C. Dvorak - Weirder by the Minute

On the Value of Research (5, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480698)

Nobody would have predicted that most people would now take pictures by holding the camera out in front of them and look at the preview screen to frame a shot.

Except that lots of cameras have had little glass screens [tlr-cameras.com] that you looked at while focusing the cameras. Dating from oh, the late 1800s.

Re:On the Value of Research (4, Funny)

harrkev (623093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480747)

Yeah, but nobody looks at their digital camera with a black cloth covering their heads.

Oh, wait. With the readability of some of those LCDs in bright sunlight, that is not a bad idea. Coming soon to a Best Buy near you...

Re:On the Value of Research (4, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480803)

I'm a muslim photographer who is a woman, you insensitive clod!

Re:On the Value of Research (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480867)

You don't have to hold a hood over your head to compose on a TLR, either.

Re:On the Value of Research (1)

Slightly Askew (638918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480858)

I don't remember the model, but with our first camera you framed the shot by holding it at chest level and looking straight down into the viewfinder. Not that much different from today's method.

Re:On the Value of Research (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480906)

Yeah, whatever. Most people didn't take pictures by holding cameras out in front of them like the trend is to do with digital cameras, whatever may have been available or theoretically possible.

(Then again, I find it baffling that people compose pictures at arms lengths so much even with preview screens -- its useful sometimes, but mostly it seems easier to take good pictures using the viewfinder on most digital cameras, and it saves battery life.)

Re:On the Value of Research (1)

eheldreth (751767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480987)

I love my Yashica Yashicamat 124 TLR. It's a good cheap way to get medium format and the simplicity of it is a nice change from my Nikon gear.

quick quiz (2, Funny)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480699)

What do iPods, video games, copyright law and Steve Ballmer all have in common?

  • They all center around computers
  • They have all been the center of some legal controversy
  • They have all been the subject of an exasperatingly pointless essay by John Dvorak

Re:quick quiz (1)

kingsean (980135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480724)

thanks, i just sent your quiz in a message to the people in the "iPods, video games, copyright law and Steve Ballmer" chatroom i just joined

Frosted glass (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480701)

"Nobody would have predicted that most people would now take pictures by holding the camera out in front of them and look at the preview screen to frame a shot."

Perhaps they would be just be surprised that if all you need is frosted glass, people these days go thru all the hoopla to achieve basically the same thing.

Bert

Meh (2, Funny)

Bryant68 (978283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480702)

I enjoy John C. Dvorak's articles.

Smokers outside the building is weird? (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480707)

In the 1920s cigarettes were much more of a luxury item than the "staple" they've since become. It took a serious marketing effort to get them into everyday life -- actors and studios were paid to show smoking on movie screens, ad campaigns were designed to convince women that smoking wasn't a "men's only" pleasure, and the like. Besides, smokers wouldn't have interrupted their 1920s workday for a cigarette break -- their bosses would most likely have forbidden it.

Go back another few decades, and you'd probably find smoking a cigarette inside a building would have been weirder. Or only bring the time travellers in from the 1960s -- they'd be the ones weirded out.

Re:Smokers outside the building is weird? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480992)

"were paid" - still are, it appears. People in movies never pay cabdrivers, but they always have time to light up a cigarette.

what a waste... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480713)

I want those 3 minutes of my life back!

Not news for nerds. Not stuff that matters. (0, Troll)

wbren (682133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480714)

From TFA:
I find it amusing to go to a tourist area and see all these people using the cameras this way.
Well if you think looking at people take pictures is amusing, you might find this article hilarious. Otherwise, this is just a collection of boring observations about everyday tech life. Slow news week? In otherwords: Not news for nerds. Not stuff that matters.

hmmm.... (1)

Wedge1212 (591767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480716)

Yawn?

Ubiquity (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480722)

Of course, nothing could be weirder than the emergence of Web addresses on business cards and their ubiquitous use. Nowadays a company without a Web site is in loser territory--out of touch. This all happened around 1998, and we now take it for granted.

Web addresses are everywhere and on anything. You do have to wonder about any company/organization that doesn't have website and/or email addresses. Of course you have to wonder even more about a company where everyone's email address ends in "@aol.com" or "@yahoo.com," though I suppose that's better than nothing.

Print, TV, radio... the web follows you everywhere, even when you're not near a computer. Mind you, with the rise of the search engine (especially Google), I wonder if your web address is as critical as it used to be. I find a lot of sites by search, not typing web addresses into my browser. So it's theoretically possible that in the future, domain names might become less useful, especially as more and more of the best ones are used up.

Re:Ubiquity (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480886)

Why would you not want your email address on your business card? It means you can be contacted via email. I'd much rather be contacted via email than called on the phone, and I suspect that's true of many others as well.

I have to say this is a strange article. Most of that conduct seems pretty reasonable and normal. Of course people are going to want to share their pictures with others as they are made. Natural human desire, for sure.

Now, maybe blowing out your ears with an iPod isn't so reasonable. But certainly wanting to listen to music is more or less a human constant, and wanting to listen to your taste in music instead of someone else's is so obvious it hardly bears mentioning.

D

Umm, some more basic changes... (5, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480730)

"I've often thought about the new commonplace practices in society that someone from 1920 might find odd"



Umm, get more basic, complacent geek! How about:

- women having equal rights, being paid the same as men.
- ethnic groups treated equally in many countries (people were still being burnt alive in the USA in the 20s for being the wrong colour, right?)
- people living for much longer

oh... too many to mention, even before you talk about the minutae of technological habits...

quiet day at the office Mr Dvorak?

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480784)

People still get burnt alive / killed for being the wrong color. See Zimbabwe

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480847)

People still get burnt alive / killed for being the wrong color. See Zimbabwe

Fsck Zimbabwe! See downtown Detroit!

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480796)

- ethnic groups treated equally in many countries (people were still being burnt alive in the USA in the 20s for being the wrong colour, right?)

Err, what? Even in myth, the only people who were burned alive in the US were 17th century witches, and that's not actually true either.

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480875)

Err, what? Even in myth, the only people who were burned alive in the US were 17th century witches, and that's not actually true either.

I think the parent poster is referring to the Ku Klux Klan, which, while most of its victims were hanged or shot, some were actually burned alive.

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480910)

people were still being burnt alive in the USA in the 20s for being the wrong colour, right?

Lynched yes, burnt alive no. Even the KKK didn't burn people alive.

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480914)

women having equal rights, being paid the same as men.

Uh, try again. Most women make ~75% of what a man makes. See or just google for 'gender pay gap'. [bls.gov]

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481012)

Uh, try again. Most women make ~75% of what a man makes.
I'd say that probably is irrelevant. It's surprising enough for a 1920ier.

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480924)

I think some one from the 1920s would be able to addapt to the technology very quickly, I think they would have a harder time with adapting to the lifestile.

1920's nerd - "This computer is the bees knees, I can find lots of information from around the world, and it makes my job more productive. I don't need to do mechnical drawings of my drafting projects, the Computer will do it for me. This is wonderfull"

2000's nerd - "Yeah, cool, want to see my case mod and have a Mountan Due"

1920's nerd - "Wow you are fat, and your teath are repulsive."

2000's nerd - "Yeah well I'll FRAG you in (insert FSP or MPORPG)!"

1920's nerd - "Pardon?"

2000's nerd - "Oh, you don't know about computer games yet...."Explanes games

1920's nerd - "Shocking! I'm going back to the 20s"

Re:Umm, some more basic changes... (1)

Zaplocked (925208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480965)

Is english a second language for you or something? There were a lot of really, really weird spelling errors in there (not the kind you get by simply mistyping a word).

My eyes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480735)

This column really reminded me of those really awkward shows where fledgling comics try their hand at observational humor and fail miserably. That article could have been (and probably was) written between mid-morning snack and lunchtime -- if it took any longer, then Dvorak needs a new job.

Seriously, how was any of that funny? Or insightful? Or even original? People have been writing "Wow people from a couple generations ago would be amazed at how things have changed" bits for centuries.

Really, this ~article is no more than things that Dvorak noticed are a little 'odd'. He failed miserably at turning that into humor.

Psych! (2)

xymog (59935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480749)

Oh hell, there went another two minutes of my life spent on mindless drivel that I'll never get back.

Re:Psych! (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480838)

Don't worry; I can give you more mindless drivel if you ever run out. You were lamenting about the mindless drivel you will never get back right?

Re:Psych! (4, Insightful)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480860)

Oh hell, there went another two minutes of my life spent on mindless drivel that I'll never get back.

If those minutes of your life were so important, you shouldn't be reading slashdot anyway.

What a moron... (3, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480751)

Give someone a pro DSLR and they'll still hold it at arms length? Apparently this braniac has never used an SLR or realized you CAN'T get an image on the screen before the shutter opens.

I stopped reading after that. I assume it kept getting worse?

Re:What a moron... (1)

sirinek (41507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480809)

I was going to post the same thing. However, there is at least one digital SLR that has a real-time LCD viewfinder, that is the Olympus E330 E-volt [dpreview.com] . Now why you would buy a digital SLR only to use it like a cheapie point-and-shoot is a question to ponder.

Re:What a moron... (1)

prichardson (603676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480921)

If you have thousands of dollars of disposable income and you need your penis enlarged, this is much safer than surgery.

In somewhat more seriousness, what happens is that people assume that a better camera will let them take better pictures. THey don't realize that the bottleneck is not the technology, but their creative power. They think that spending all that money will make them take better pictures.

Re:What a moron... (2)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480961)

You do actually need a half-decent SLR before that creative power can be unleashed. If you can't alter the shutter speed or the aperture, you lose a lot of expressive possibility. Which is why I'm still shooting with a film SLR (Eos 5), because I can't afford a digital SLR with the same level of control.

Re:What a moron... (1)

codemaster2b (901536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480953)

Now why you would buy a digital SLR only to use it like a cheapie point-and-shoot is a question to ponder.

Image quality. Plain and simple. DSLR's have better sensors, better lenses. And hey, if you aren't doing manual focus (most DSLR's have a predominate auto-focus system, the mirror doesn't have the diffraction qualities for good manual focus), what does holding it to your eye gain you?

I'm personally fed up with the lack of quality even in my professional Sony V3, and want a canon 20d just for the sensor (yeah... give me the lenses and the sniper telephoto too :-). And a screen gives you the chance to take pictures while no one is anticipating you.

Still, its a feature that has too many bad side-effects. It makes the picture longer to take, you can't meter properly, or autofocus properly, and the e330 is a camera I'd never buy.

Why use a SLR system on a digital camera? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480985)

For those who don't know, a Single Lens Reflex camera has a mirror at a 45 degree angle in front of the shutter. It bounces light up into another mirror and out the viewfinder until you take the picture. Then the first mirror snaps out of the way and the shutter opens. This way, the viewfinder shows the same scene as the film will record, as the light is coming through the same lens system and not just through a seperate hole.

So why use this system on a digital camera? You don't need it. Don't try me with the "You aren't seeing the real scene that will be photographed" bit, you can make a viewscreen just as accurate and the light is still coming through the same lens system. Anyone who takes pictures knows that what the film or CCD sees and what your eye sees are two different things anyway. Is holding a camera up to your face an inherently better way to take pictures? If so, you could still build a viewfinder with a screen you look into like an SLR viewfinder.

Anyway, just to keep things on topic: this article sucks.

Funny? (1)

zataang (596856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480753)

Funny? My ass. Granted, some of the things described could be thought of as weird, but the article does not in ANY way depict them in a funny manner. And hilarious, it is most definitely not.

Nobody (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480754)

Nobody would have predicted that most people would now take pictures by holding the camera out in front of them and look at the preview screen to frame a shot.

If Dvorak was born in 1920-s I bet he would've predicted it.

By the way, we found it crazy that people talk "to themselves" on the street (actually to their cell phones) on the street and we though this makes you look insane. This wasn't 1920, it was 1995. So, things change.

One thing Dvorak is wrong about though:

Whatever the case, it appears as if we are now stuck with these new archetypes.

We're all but stuck with anything. In just 20 years we'll discuss how having rotating mini satelite dish on your head would've looked strange to someone from 2006.

But things change so fast, you just become accustomed to seeing odd stuff at home and on the streets. We no longer see strange as strange.

Re:Nobody (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480983)

In just 20 years we'll discuss how having rotating mini satelite dish on your head would've looked strange to someone from 2006.


What? You mean you don't have one of these yet? What cave have you been living in, man?

My wifes grandfather (5, Interesting)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480756)

86 years old, lives in eastern europe-- grew up in a world without automobiles, spent two nights in jail in his life for slaughtering a pig without sharing the meat with the state-- was recently upstairs in the family mansion-- (a big deal for him to get there) he was watching, and listening, two his two great grandchildren via a panasonic IP camera, which allows for walkie-talkie sound (model# KX-HCM110A) if you are interested.. although they (my wife & the family in the old country) usually talk while the family watches the kids & listen to them play and what they can do lately...

I could tell from his voice when he was talking, to the kids- something was getting to him.. I asked my wife later.. he was simply flabbergasted.. he couldn't believe he could watch on 'tv' (he knows it's not tv- but he refers to it as such) his great grandchildren from 6,000 miles away..... he was talking about what an amazing world it was.

I find more spooky though, trying to imagine the world I'll be failing to comprehend, when I make 86 (if I do)

Dvorak's never seen a twin-lens reflex? (4, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480764)

What would someone from the 1920s find weird about about "the practice of framing shots in the preview window by holding the camera out in front of yourself?"

How is it weirder than the practice of looking down toward your waist to frame the shot in a twin-lens reflex... like the Rolleiflex [wikipedia.org] , available since 1928, wildly popular from the 1920s well into the 1970s? Cheap consumer versions of this camera style were popular, too. In the 1950s my mom took pictures with a "Brownie Reflex," Kodak's cheap twin-lens reflex which used 127 film, was fixed focus, had a fixed aperture, and exactly two shutter settings ("Instantaneous" and "Bulb"). I remember seeing someone with a Bolex 35 mm twin-lens reflex...

How is it weirder from the practice, from the turn of the century at least through the 1990s, if not today, of framing shots by tossing a black cloth over your head and starting at the ground glass in the back of your 4x5 view camera? (Or larger, in the case of Eduard Weston or Ansel Adams?)

People from the 20's find the iPod phenom weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480789)

In their day they didn't need ear buds to go deaf. They went deaf the old-fashioned way: from mining explosions, industrial noise and agricultural incidents. People from the 20's would also find it weird that Mr. Burns was still not alive.

The meaning of Dvorak changed (4, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480792)

from a fine composer to some douche with a head too big for his intellect.

Is he still around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480797)

I stopped reading at "Dvorak"

Posting AC because some people have no sense of humor.

Try Disconnecting from the Ethernet Umbilical Cord (1)

RedMagus77 (743500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480800)

It's all just another sign that we're so enraptured with technology that it's become strange to not have it. Try giving out a card with just your name and number, and see how many ask for your email address as well. Heck, try to imagine living life without internet access, email addresses, MP3s, or anything computer related. We've become so intergrated that a PC is now a necessary part of life.

Re:Try Disconnecting from the Ethernet Umbilical C (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480991)

What's your point? Times change, technology evolves. The PC is ubiquitous, as is Internet access, because it's so incredibly useful. Some technologies are so unbelievably useful that they have the power to change the way members of a society interact with each other, and this is not a bad thing. The Internet is just such a technology. So was the telephone. And the printing press.

Sure, with every life-altering technology, there will be a downside, but that doesn't mean that life as a whole was better without it. I mean, the printing press changed society as well, in both good and bad ways. Just because you can use it to more widely distribute hate speech doesn't mean it's a bad technology that people should stop using entirely.

Some people now interact with each other more through the Internet than they do in face to face conversation, but that's only part of the story. In most cases, people now interact with each other more than they used to, period. It seems strange that the Internet has developed a reputation as a technology for anti-social nerds, when it has enabled more people to participate in more social networks than ever before. How can this be a bad thing?

Ready for this? (2, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480808)

<breaking news>Technology changes</breaking news>

C'mon. It's not hard to figure out that the technology of the '20s would have looked strange and magical to people of eighty years previous to that: airplanes, automobiles, tractors, radios, light bulbs, motion pictures, telegraphs, trains, steam engines, and the list goes on.

Nothing to see here... (2, Insightful)

klynch (980181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480817)

None of these technologies that he points out are actually revolutionary. They are simply logical progressions of old tech. The most revolutionary of these is the concept of the telephone. The telephone was the first device to allow people miles apart to communicate in real time. Cell phones are simply the same thing minus the wire. Same thing with iPods. They're a different medium and portable, but it's the same thing as a phonograph. Chat rooms, email, and the Internet in general, are also somewhat of a social revolution as they largely remove identity and encourage anonymity. People no longer have to take responsibility for what they say as it is a lot easier to hide your true identity. Digital camera screens? Please... there have been viewfinders for a long time. All of this technology, though innovative, won't throw off people from the 1920's too much. What would probably throw them off more is how they got into the current day.

Body English?? (1)

liak12345 (967676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480834)

It consists of sitting on a couch with a controller in your hand and gyrating around using body English in an attempt to control some action on a TV screen hooked to a video game console. Isn't the body movement the language itself? This is kind of like saying I speak spanish English.

Oh yeah (1)

Bryant68 (978283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480840)

I forgot to mention that I didn't like this article though.

why I don't do that.. (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480842)

Nobody would have predicted that most people would now take pictures by holding the camera out in front of them and look at the preview screen to frame a shot because these people look foolish...

This is basically... (2, Interesting)

jpellino (202698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480843)

the "Nacirema" updated for the gadget age.

Wake me when this vaunted pundit has an original thought.

Looking around for my hover car. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480846)

If I came from the past I'd be more upset that I couldn't find my hover car or jet pack.

carnage

1920? Try 1970. (2, Insightful)

boristdog (133725) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480854)

I don't think you'd have to go back to 1920 to find people weirded out by these things. Most were only figments of the imagination in 1970, when I was just a lad.

I remember thinking about "the future" (i.e. AD 2000) back then. Mostly it involved flying cars and jet packs. I couldn't comprehend the astounding amounts of data that would fit in the palm of your hand, and judging by the science fiction I used to read, most of the authors of the day couldn't either.

And smokers were everywhere even back in the mid 1980's. I remember coming home from work at the office smelling like a damn ashtray every day! Remember when all ceiling tiles were permanently yellow from all the smoke? Not that long ago.

Things haven't changed a lot... (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480857)

Telephones got smaller and wireless, the gramaphon turned into an iPod, instead of static stereoscopy images we now have the VirtualBoy, instead of a block of paper we have PDAs, instead of outlawing alchohol we are outlawing cigaretts, all pretty much the same if you ask me, just a bit smaller and wireless. The Internet is probally the most significant change, but even that isn't much more then a telegraph connection to your library. Dropping a person from the USA today into a different country on the other side of the globe would probally result in a larger shock then putting a 1920 USA citizen into 2006 USA.

Dvorak's usual inanity. (2)

nonlnear (893672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480863)

FTA:

Would anyone even 20 years ago have predicted that on every business card you will now find a standardized e-mail address?

And the obvious answer: yes.

I yearn for the day when Dvorak's dribble is no longer posted to /.

John C. Dvorak (0)

Blue6 (975702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480876)

Is a tool bag!

Misquote... (5, Funny)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480878)

Take a stroll through our modern world with John C. Dvorak's hilarious take.

Don't you mean "Take a troll through our modern world with John C. Dvorak..." ?

The Andy Rooney of the net (4, Insightful)

cheezit (133765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480890)

Every real-world entity seems to require an internet analog. However, we have heretofore been missing out on an internet analog to Andy Rooney. You know, from "60 Minutes," with the bushy eyebrows and whiny kvetching about "why is it that..." and "didja ever wonder why..."

Dvorak is not wrong that the modern world would look alien to someone from a long time ago---it's just a truism, so trite as to be banal. This kind of comparison, when done well, can put much-needed perspective on current developments. When done poorly it just sounds like an old man at the park.

At least he's not predicting anything this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480900)

This just in... society changes with and without technology. Shock and awe. This just in, caveman amazed by matches.

Observations about nothing (2, Funny)

thehubbell (928572) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480907)

Kinda like Seinfeld, but not interesting, funny, or clever. Oh well.

The microwave oven (2, Insightful)

The Barking Dog (599515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480920)

If I had to guess, I'd say the device that most people from the '20s would be astounded by would be the microwave oven. No apparent heat source, yet you put food in and a couple minutes later it comes out piping hot (I'd add "and delicious," but most food that comes out of a microwave doesn't qualify). That affects daily life, and while it's something of an extension of existing technology, it's quite an evolutionary step from the range and oven.

Hey I could be wrong (1)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480944)

But isn't the preview screen simply an incarnation of the viewer from dageurotype cameras in the 1900's?

At least he's consistent. You know you like it. (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480945)

What pundit so consistently manages to make slashdotters roll their eyes and write their litany of snide remarks? Even Jon Katz wasn't this productive. Dvorak never fails. Like a loudmouthed old man at a hardware store, he will let you know what he thinks about any and everything.

After he's dead, there will be a thick compendium of his writings, and the pundit industry will hail him as a brilliant prognosticator, acerbic writer, and deep thinker. Luddites and the tecnologically incompetent throughout the english-speaking world will snap it up, read it, and buy it as gifts for their peers.

He's a thinker (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480946)

incredible work. he's a master scribe.

the man is bone-a-fide

I was just wondering... (1)

Nutmegan (971365) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480958)

Is there some kind of Dvorak filter for Slashdot readers?

He forgot one thing... (1)

gamer4Life (803857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480986)

...who would have thought 10 years ago that people would read web pages by clicking on the "Print" icon so they can view the entire article at once?

Only posted to annoy /. readers (2)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15480998)

The only reason crap like this gets posted on /. is because it will generate flames. Idiots like Zonk know full well there is pretty much no useful content in a Dvorak column.

Posting articles simply to generate annoyance is bullshit.

Why does anyone bother with this guy? (1)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481002)

This guy is CLEARLY an idiot, and has been slipping into idiocy since the late eighties. Why does anyone even bother reading his trite, delusional musings?

Stating the obvious (1)

trak0r (839081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481009)

It is exponential, and in math, exponential behavior usually leads to anomalies or impractical situations. when you map this behavior to real life, the know-how people will be able to change directions to eliminate the threat... take global warming for example and the train that can't run but only a few hours a day because of dramatic climate changes in Europe connecting to parts of the country. Change has to happen there, as a result of this climatic spike trend.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...