Re: Where to now?
>>I vaguely remember that I the past it took about 50 years from an<snip>
> innovation to appear until it
> Huh? It took geosteering 3 years to drop the price of oil by a factor of 3.
My rant about the "50 years" wasn't really meant seriously. Just the
preparation to the conclusion at the end:
> Or maybe it's just that someone figured out that it's easier toOr, in other words, we don't have inspired leaders in the industry any
> develop sub-par products and sell them to people with below-average
> intelligence than to develop something for an audience which knows
> what it wants.
> Quite a bit different from the visions of many SciFi authors, which
> envisioned that mankind would evolve towards higher intelligence.
> Instead, we've an industry which makes being dumb more favourable..."
more. A manager has to maximize profits, especially the profits which
are measured in hard dollars. There are two ways to achieve this:
(a) be innovative, open new markets, invent
(b) cut costs
Approach (a) is risky. It also requires a bit of brain. So everyone
chooses the safe way, (b).
This, of course, a tendency only. But it's sufficient and it surely
kills innovation. I wonder how much further this tendency will go.
- On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien <zwilnik@...> wrote:
> I also note in passing that a study done a few years agoWould you be referring to the study published by Bauman and Rose in 2011?
> about charitable giving found that economists were the stingiest group in
> the study, which I found not at all surprising.