Yes this is true, but only because someone else dealt with the complexity, solved the problems, and then presented the end user with a machine that did the work or calculations for him. But make no mistake someone had to solve the actual problems or there would have been no machine/calculator/whatever.
In fact it's added complexity that causes obsolescence. The simple example is the stone wheel. Great for long distance hauling, very durable, holds a lot of weight. Terrible for speed. Very heavy. As soon as you add the need for speed, you have to re-engineer the wheel. Its true however that once someone engineers a new wheel that is much lighter, still fairly durable, and can go faster, the end user doesn't have to know anything about how he did it. He just goes down to the wheel shop and trades a few horses for a couple wheels. Simple right? :-) Bob On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Todd Geist wrote: > But your other point about a solution not being simpler than the problem it > is meant to solve. I understand what you mean. But if that were true then > there wouldn't be much advancement in technology. I think that > breakthroughs in technology are really about taking a complex problem and > making it simpler. The best solutions are the simplest ones. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
