# Tech of old -



## Highlander II (Jul 20, 2008)

Which comes to mind b/c I've been watching old _Scarecrow and Mrs. King_ episodes...

They have some really ancient looking computers on this show.  Like old Apple IIe types and the like.

They don't even have cell phones!  How amazing is that?  No cell phones, so they have to use pay phones and other means of communication.  They don't appear to have internet, but in the '80's, I'm not sure it would've done them much good.

I remember an episode of _MacGyver_ where he had to put the phone handset into a device to have it connect to a modem line.  I was amused. =)


----------



## Pyan (Jul 20, 2008)

Well, they _could _have had mobiles...but it would have slowed them down somewhat....


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 20, 2008)

> They don't appear to have internet, but in the '80's, I'm not sure it would've done them much good.



Are you kidding? Bidding on Deloreans on eBay, finding out who the heck was singing that song: "Love is a Battlefield," using Google Maps to find your way to the Journey concert, looking up show times for The Breakfast Club on Fandango...oh, and, how could I forget, subscribing to the "Pink Socks, Hypercolor Podcast of Totally Tubular Radicalness!"

The Internet, plus the 80's equals a good time!


----------



## Dave (Jul 20, 2008)

When this was a cool way to travel:

View attachment 17406

and this was state of the art:

View attachment 17407


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 20, 2008)

Highlander II said:


> They don't even have cell phones! How amazing is that?


 
Sounds like a wonderful place. 

I hate all things cellphone just in case you hadn't guessed.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 20, 2008)

I remember the c-5, the Museum of Transport in Glasgow has one, the donor won it and immediately donated the thing.


----------



## Dave (Jul 20, 2008)

pyan said:


> Well, they _could _have had mobiles...but it would have slowed them down somewhat....


Not with one of these:

View attachment 17410


----------



## Dave (Jul 20, 2008)

I also remember when everyone wanted one of these:

View attachment 17411


----------



## Pyan (Jul 20, 2008)

Heh!

And they had such exciting things to worry about, too...

Archives


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 21, 2008)

Commonmind said:


> Are you kidding? Bidding on Deloreans on eBay, finding out who the heck was singing that song: "Love is a Battlefield," using Google Maps to find your way to the Journey concert, looking up show times for The Breakfast Club on Fandango...oh, and, how could I forget, subscribing to the "Pink Socks, Hypercolor Podcast of Totally Tubular Radicalness!"
> 
> The Internet, plus the 80's equals a good time!




Ha!

I was more referring to the crudeness of the internet at that stage.  When you had to all but write code to make your computer even connect - if it could at all! =)

And I'm going to pretend you didn't use the word 'tubular' in a sentence! XD


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 21, 2008)

Coincidentally, I'm going to pretend I didn't either.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 21, 2008)

Can we really say we're better off now?
I remember people saying modern tech would bring people together but judging how you can look out and see a crowd of people with cell phones stuck to their ears or texting and not socializing with the people actually there with them I think it's having the opposite effect. People are remaining in their tight little cliques no matter where they go.


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 21, 2008)

Well, there's positives as well. For one, while everyone may have a cell phone tied to their ears, social networking has seeped into nearly every home in mainstream society; we've brought people together in ways which were once unimaginable. We've made sacrifices, of course; without digital anonymity, people often find it harder to interact with their immediate peers -- but who is to say that's not a justifiable consequence, when cultural diversity, religious unity and social adeptness are no longer exceptions, but often the rule.

I say we're better off, yes. We're evolving, not physiologically, but as social beings. We're adapting to our environment, and as a result our horizons are broadening immeasurably.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 21, 2008)

There are positives yes, but there are many who don't utilize tech properly but see devices as toys. 
I don't know...I fear for our future somewhat.


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 21, 2008)

We're humans, you should always fear for our future. Since we've walked the planet we've been bent on our own destruction.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 21, 2008)

True. We now have better tools with which to destroy ourselves.

I truly believe we are degenerating into a tribal society with all of its' benefits and dangers. This is not to say that all of us are falling into it but when groups can immediately be in contact no matter where they are the potential for good or bad is greatly increased.


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 21, 2008)

Though, I was watching an ep of S&MK yesterday where they had something of a pre-cursor to the cell phone - sort of walkie-talkies w/ 'phone numbers' to dial to get the person you want.  Relatively short range, I suppose, and they had a long antenna, but similar in concept to the cell phone.

I was watching "the Big Easy" the other night too and the pagers they had were the size of the old Nokia 'bricks'!  That was amusing too. =)

As far as the question of 'are we better off' - better off as compared to what, exactly?  We're killing fewer trees by sending spam via electronic mail, but we're clogging up the 'airwaves' (or whatever) by sending all this junk e-mail; we have cell phones for all sorts of reasons - sometimes as simple as saving money on long distance bills since the regular landline companies charge way too much.  

Of course there's the continued decline of the use of the English (and possibly other) language.  Do folks in other non-English speaking countries abbreviate the heck out of their words via text message too, or is that limited to the English speaking folks?  txt spk drives me absolutely bonkers!  Bad grammar and spelling in and of themselves drive me nuts, but text speak?  What's the point?  I know, it's supposed to be faster, but is it really faster if you need a decoder ring to figure out what's being said?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> Heh!
> 
> And they had such exciting things to worry about, too...
> 
> Archives


 

Would that be using one of those HCF commands reputed to be available on various processors (the instruction code, of course, not the mnemonic), including the good old 6502?


(HCF = Halt and Catch Fire)


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 21, 2008)

Highlander II said:


> Though, I was watching an ep of S&MK yesterday where they had something of a pre-cursor to the cell phone - sort of walkie-talkies w/ 'phone numbers' to dial to get the person you want.  Relatively short range, I suppose, and they had a long antenna, but similar in concept to the cell phone.
> 
> I was watching "the Big Easy" the other night too and the pagers they had were the size of the old Nokia 'bricks'!  That was amusing too. =)
> 
> ...



Well, it's relative isn't it? The decline, or evolution of the language, that's the question. We surely don't speak/write English as accurately as it was spoken/written 50 years ago, nor do we speak/write with the same accuracy or vocabulary as someone who spoke/wrote 50 years before that. 

Language never declines, it only changes to suit the generation who's using it as a device of communication. I'm sure you assume if you follow grammatical rules in the way you've learned them, as precisely as possible, you assume you're writing or speaking English properly. The truth is, compared to generations previous, your English is sub-par at best (I'm being purposefully contrary here, not trying to contradict my point).

Change is always looked upon with negativity, especially in this technological age, but too often we're doing what our predecessors did, we're not accepting our inevitable social evolution and looking to it as the cause for the problems of our mainstream society. If in 50 years talking in 133t speak is normal and mainstream, and books are written in that fashion, who is to say that it is "bad English." If there are still sophisticated stories being told, by intelligent individuals, we must call it a change in communication, rather than a degradation of our ever-evolving language.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Jul 21, 2008)

Highlander II said:


> Of course there's the continued decline of the use of the English (and possibly other) language.  Do folks in other non-English speaking countries abbreviate the heck out of their words via text message too, or is that limited to the English speaking folks?  txt spk drives me absolutely bonkers!  Bad grammar and spelling in and of themselves drive me nuts, but text speak?  What's the point?  I know, it's supposed to be faster, but is it really faster if you need a decoder ring to figure out what's being said?



I actually find that "txtspeak" takes me longer to type than just writing normally. I have to really think about how to shorten them. Although I admit when mobile phones and the internet was really taking off (or, when I finally got the internet, I suppose) I did dabble with shortened text. But now I detest it and will always, even on MSN, even in text, use full words, proper grammar, everything. Even dashes and the like. 

And as you say, some people shorten it to the point of it becoming incomprehensible. Not such a fast method when you need to take half an hour to work out what's being said.


----------



## Dave (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Are We Better Off*

Re: Are We Better Off

A couple of different points about the previous posts:

Firstly, I heard that stenographers and telegraph operators were using a kind of shorthand much like texting, decades ago. Not sure how accurate that is, but there is very little under this Sun that is new. Also, Morse Code is faster than texting. If you look on You Tube there is a clip from _The Tonight Show with Jay Leno_ when they ran a competition. 

Secondly, I remember when, if you were going out, you used to arrange to meet someone at a certain time in a certain place. I'm one of those people who are always on time, but I realise that for many people 'on time' can mean anything up to 10 minutes late. Anyway, you would wait for this person - boyfriend, girlfriend, acquaintance, colleague - and probably giving them the benefit of the doubt - for up to 20 or 30 minutes before calling it a day. No one ever, ever does that now. If you are even a minute late, they are immediately on the phone, "Where are you?" - often you are crossing the road, on the opposite side of the bar, or upstairs on the same bus - if they would only open their eyes. But I do see that as a great benefit, and one younger people take completely for granted.


----------



## ktabic (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Are We Better Off*



Dave said:


> Secondly, I remember when, if you were going out, you used to arrange to meet someone at a certain time in a certain place. I'm one of those people who are always on time, but I realise that for many people 'on time' can mean anything up to 10 minutes late. Anyway, you would wait for this person - boyfriend, girlfriend, acquaintance, colleague - and probably giving them the benefit of the doubt - for up to 20 or 30 minutes before calling it a day. No one ever, ever does that now.



The reason I got a mobile phone (after resisting for years) was because I was tired of being stood up at places, with the excuse 'I tried to phone you but you had already left...'


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Are We Better Off*



Dave said:


> Re: Are We Better Off
> 
> A couple of different points about the previous posts:
> 
> Firstly, I heard that stenographers and telegraph operators were using a kind of shorthand much like texting, decades ago. Not sure how accurate that is, but there is very little under this Sun that is new. Also, Morse Code is faster than texting. If you look on You Tube there is a clip from _The Tonight Show with Jay Leno_ when they ran a competition.




Stenographer / secretarial shorthand - which does exist, is a bit different from txtspk typing... and it was designed for someone to be able to take notes quickly, then transcribe them later.  It's also, from what I understand, standardized, whereas txtspk / l33t speak is not - at least, not to any degree I've been able to discern.

I do use some of the 'net idioms like 'lol' and 'afk' and the like, but for the most part - I just abuse the ellipsis and the dash, but my words are complete (with a few minor exceptions like 'b/c').  

For me, I think it comes down to the fact that I know how to spell, it just happens to be something I'm good at, so misspelling (even on purpose) is frivolous to me and makes no sense.

And if you had to sit through a semester long treatise on punctuation and grammar rules like I did, grammar would either be the bane of your existance or you'd grumble at people violating the rules. =)

Seriously - I know more about commas than I EVER wanted to know.  The upside - I make a really great editor! *g*


----------



## Commonmind (Jul 22, 2008)

I should probably admit to the fact that I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I do believe there is a difference between what is considered decline, and what is evolution, and I think there is often a misconception about the two when it comes to language. But I'm an active member of the Grammar Police -- I take down pleonasms and pluperfects with the greatest enthusiasm -- and I absolutely despise most of the internet trends. This includes all forms of "leet" speak and anything involving pictures accompanied by witty captions. 

While texting or using an instant messenger, I type with correct spelling and punctuation and will very rarely shorten something, save the occasional "lol," and "afk."

However, I don't attribute this to my having to sit through hours and hours of boring English study. I blame it all on the fact that I hate sounding like a complete idiot to the person on the receiving end of the message.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 22, 2008)

I totally agree. I hate internet speak.

One other thing that riles me to no end!

Orientate, Orientated and all its' other convolutions!

There is no such word!!!!

It's Orient, Orientation and Oriented!


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 22, 2008)

The word that is the bane of my existance - 'snuck'.

NOT. A. WORD.

_sneaked_ is the correct past tense of 'sneak'.  


Other tech of old?  Hmmmmm - only thing I watched yesterday was _Midnight Caller_ and some guy had the 'old school' flip phone... the cinder block sized type (well, if the old Nokias are 'bricks', and this was bigger than that...)

I love watching old TV shows and looking at things.  The computers on MacGyver crack me up - they're so ancient looking! =)


----------



## Dave (Jul 22, 2008)

Highlander II said:


> The computers on MacGyver crack me up - they're so ancient looking! =)


I think that one of the reasons _*Star Trek*_ may not have aged as much as it might have was the Matt Jeffries designs. Instead of taking '60's equipment and making them look futuristic, his designs were simple and stylish.

Compare this _TOS_ monitor with the one from _Voyager_. The _TOS_ one was designed 40 years ago, yet could have aged much more. Okay, they didn't predict flat screens, but they did predict memory held on small discs. The _Voyager_ laptop is from less than 10 years ago, but look how bulky and old fashioned that already looks now, and it has a tiny screen.

View attachment 17427

View attachment 17426


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 22, 2008)

Marcus15 said:


> I totally agree. I hate internet speak.
> 
> One other thing that riles me to no end!
> 
> ...



And, for the other side of the planet, occidised?

In the DEC rainbow (two competing operating systems, eight and sixteen bit calculation – hey, I think it's still around if any wants a heavy doorstop) there was a version of Word that let me cut text up conveniently into columns; really convenient for parallel translation, and for preparing film scripts.
None of the new ones have anything equivalent; you have to generate a table or similar, considerably more complicated.


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 22, 2008)

Word has a column layout under 'format'.  Granted, I'm not sure how convenient it is the way the layout is designed -it's more 'newpaper' than 'compare columns of things'.

I don't even know if Open Office will do that, then again, I haven't had need of that feature.

Dave - those computers are almost 'bricks' compared to what we have today.  Then again, when original Trek ran, weren't they certain that there would never *be* a desktop style PC b/c everyone figured the 'computer' would always take up entire rooms?  The 'microchip' changed a lot.

There's actually an episode of something like MacGyver or an old tv movie where someone has a 1980's 'laptop' - which was like the CPU w/ a flip-up monitor - like the old word processors.  It was hilarious to see!  If I could find a screenshot, I'd add it, but I don't recall where I saw it.


----------

