Sensors & Switches

Since portland concrete is the second most used substance by man (second only to water) I would add ceramic cements and geopolymers as they will replace portland cement within the next ten years due to the fact that OPC produces one pound of Co2 for every pound of portland

Archaeologists claim the the Egyptians get credit for inventing 2D drafting. The suggested motivation for implementation of orthogonal views is said to have been necessitated by the need to hide burial chambers from grave robbers.

Whether these assertions are valid or not might be argued. However, when we consider that 2D drafting has been around for so many thousands of years, with no really fundamental change to the basic concept, and then gets bounced in less than 17 years by 3D solid modeling, then it's reasonable in my opinion, to nominate 3D modeling as being extremely disruptive.

L.J.

By far the biggest, baddest, most notorious, and totally dominating disruptive technology of ALL time is..... MONEY!

next would be.... religion! (most anyway)

Hi Chris,

Your observation is exact except in the reverse order. Religion is the first and I am sure the church or other locals for prayers, invented the money to collect it to build up power to dominate. This was the first "niche business", which is one and unique item or subject, spraid it enough to get to everyone around, and dominate the market. We are here for eternity!

Conclusion, probably for the fun, niche market was the most disrupting technology invented by human. So, the order is: First, niche market as "religion" or "religion" as niche market, and "money" the next.

Sorry Chris, your idea provoked my thoughts about disruption technology, and I don't want to innovate but I see the answer this way, Gil.

NB: I suggest an interesting book on disruption. Jean-Marie DRU - ISBN 0-471-16565-4 (1996).

"Religion is the first and I am sure the church or other locals for prayers, invented the money to collect it to build up power to dominate."

I am trying to find something positive in the history of Catholicism with which to cleanse it of some it's violent behavior. It's difficult.

Even Gandhi was quoted as having said "Were it not for the behavior of Christians, I'd have followed Christ"

There is no question however, that it ranks high as a disruptive force.

Ask the Romans!

I wonder if it qualifies as Pseudoscience (sic!)?

L.J.

Hi L.J.,

I don't want to talk about one religion. All of them do the same, they developed dominating characteristics by collecting and accumulating money. When you become dominating, you become arrogent, and arrogance turn to oppression after certain period of use of that arrogance, which finally channelled to violence. Every religion turned to violence during milleniums. History tells us. First, against its people and finally against outsiders, other, rival religions. The Catholics are the best to demonstrate this evolution with the help of money. In every church, we have some picture or pane of glass to show those wars. I am sure it's the same with the Dalai Lama's religion. The monks don't work but ask for food. The rest or other half of the population works for the total and eat the half of the food available. Who will dominate at the end? The monks. They will have well decorated and valueable temples and the workers need to labour all day, all life, and live in a hole in the mountain or in slums! Please, let me know if I am out of the track or what's the truth, Gil.

Hi Jag,

You cannot find positive in any religion. Including the all the time smiling and smooth Dalai Lama. There religion never created equality between there people. They have the just oppressed, the working people, and the prayers who exploit the workers. Let say smoothly, up to now, without too much violence. Look around, Christians have Saint Crusades and Inquisition to kill. The Maya's religion was sacrifying their own people or enemis. Muslims they kill another Muslims because they choose to not believe one single part of the Koran or understand differently. Also, today, we expend "billions" because our standard of life or religion with money, drugs, high ago, individualism, and other modern lifestyle doesn't fit to others who don't want to become like we are. The question: What's better, the status quo or evolution? Ask the question and you have friends and enemis at the same time. It's the same like wife and husband. Man and woman or a human from one continent against another human from other continent. Opinions are different and these differences conduct to infriendly situation, division through different education and beliefs, to divorce, to arguments and menaces, and finally to war. This was that way all the time in the human history. There is no other solution, we need a victor and at the other end we have a victim or a dead person. Win-Win doesn't exist! Just my opinion on this subject I became the friend of certain and some others hate my opinion and me too. I already mentionned that "church" and "money" was the firsts disruptive technologies with its niche market to dominate. If you find something different, please let me know, Gil.

? I am guessing this was translation from a primarily french speaker. It is so hard to read and some of it doesn't make sense, some of the words don't make sense, the sentence grammar is exceedingly poor to make many sentences incomprehensible and the flow of the thought process from sentence to snetence is disjointed or discontinuous. While flexibility in written language is not unreasonable in such a forum, there has to be some limit when the entire rant becomes incomprehensible. It kind of seems like maybe you are in some way opposed to religion in paert on the basis of inequalities religion supports amongst men at the start of the rant, but then there is something about how these inequalities have existed and a man and a woman, and husband and wife, and how opinions differ amongst people. And in the end you equate Religion to a technology, which is incorrect (money, the actually paper and coinage might be a technology, though I do not believe the whole financial system in which money is utilized would be, which is what I believe you are actually ranting against). I am not sure if you are just so irrate you can not compose a rational line of thought, maybe have too many subjects contardictory in nature running through your thought proces at once, or if it is just in the translation.

Hi RCE,

I'm happy to disrupt you! I don't care about your personnel vendetta about my writing, my knowledge about letter making, and other educational weaknesses. No one is perfect! However, you understood very well all errors, sometimes typing, sometimes language, and many times not corrected before releasing the comments. I think you do the same. I can pinpoint a few many in your text too but isn't my attention.

I am against no one, no against religions. I just write down what I see, what religious people do and talk. When I hear one of principle member of one religion says: We have to kill him! It's bothers me. When I hear the news that religious people take young orphans and use as sex slaves, hurts my mind.

I said the "church" or "prayers place" was created as a "niche" market, exploiting people. Asking money after a smooth and efficient talk. Money was the easiest item, we can get, and we can do many things with it, buy, sell, loan, and own everything.

Now, I would like to get your opinion about my writing concerning "disruptive technologies". In my opinion, "religion" and "money" were these "disruptive technologies". After my limited knowledge, they are the first. If you disagree with it, let me know, Gil.

Gil wrote: "You cannot find positive in any religion"

Quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder Gil. Your anger at organized mysticism is apparent, perhaps even warranted. However, to paint all religions with so broad a brush and condemning all of them as being worthless, is unfair.

One benefit of religion, which I've addressed elsewhere, is that it stabilizes a community with agreed upon rules of behavior. Granted such behavioral predictability comes at a price but judging from history, people are prepared to pay the price in exchange for behavioral certainty in others.

The question that begs to get answered then is: are the benefits gained as a result of having communal stability worth the price paid to an oppressive religion.

For many the answer apparently is yes or they'd have found another system.

L.J.

Hi Jag,

I accept that my senteces are reflecting anger but it's only the answer of too many soft words about it. I am not angry about any religion, they can be good or bad for everyone. It's a matter of choice. You believe it or not!

I agree with you that many monasters protected surrounding people and created stability with certain consequences, but was really positive. Monks do the same.

Jag, without anger, just with the eyes of an observer, there is trouble all around the world because we have different religious beliefs, which are reflected in education, culture, and many other. There is no anger, there are proves concerning troubles. The economy is related to it. We have too much attention for protection, both sides, and we miss to watch ourselves from a few exploitors or ago-driven people.

Again, I described one of possibilities of "Disruptive Technologies": the "church", followed by "money". This was my opinion, good or bad, and I defended my opinion. What you are saying about me is not exactly the truth. You don't say all the time what is real or true, isn't it? Nobody is perfect! I just defend my opinion on the blog's subject, Gil.

Religion probably would not qualify as a technology but rather as a disruptive influence or some other characterization.

Hello RCE,

It's me again. I remembered that you have already something against the "religions" as "disruptive technologies". However, your sentence mentionned the word "probably". It's not for sure a translation from French to English. So, you are not sure what you tell us? What's the true reality? The "religion" is or isn't?

Someone already told that "disruptive technologies" can be ideas, processes (and not proces as you mentionned lately), and methodologies. Religion is an idea, use a process to be here, and methodology to attract, select, or refuse adepts.

It's the same as doctors washing and disinfecting hands between patients. It's so "disruptive" or "disrupting", at choice, that 150 years later, today, many well educated and knwledgeable doctors forget to do so.

Just a corrective note from Gil.

If you consider religion a technology, then politics, sexuality, marketing, and any number of social interactions also qualify. As far as disruptive, there haven't been many rapid changes in religions that cover the largest populations, by comparison to the world wide web. For the most part the larger religions have functioned to promote status quo and a certain order in society, the newer religions took centuries to evolve to a following of very many people. Even Christianity as it evolved did not disrupt the Roman Empire much. The evolving cult just happened to make good scape goats at times for some Roman Emperors. By the time of constantine it had become more common and was more standardized to support the old order. I can not think of a religion that effected even more than 50% of the world population that made an all inclusive major change in policy effecting all its followers that was implemented in less than 25 years.

Now as to why religion is not a technology even under your terms, it is not an idea but a composition of many ideas that have been codified and standardized to present an overall belief system, such as the Bible. Religion is just a term used to identify this composition of standard beliefs derived from the many existent variance of the belief system at the time they were standardized. However, even within that standard there are deviations, some are allowed and some are deemed heretical, but no two people have exactly the same religious beliefs, they are developed by individuals to suit each individuals perceptions, experiences, and capacity for learning and comprehension. Religions follow the trends of the masses, sometimes dragged along forcibly, technologies lead the trends in the masses and create changes in the way people function. While people have used religion as a basis for warfare and other activities, it was the act of warfare and not the religion that effected the change. The religion was just an excuse to take an action, it does not directly create action in and of itself. Religion like any other philosophical belief system is a justification for people to undertake behaviors, and is subjective to the needs of those who apply it through expansion of the cases presented within religions to develop analogs to suit the justifications required for some action. In essence, religions function in terms of you have some need and desire to take some action, but you need others to accept your actions, you then attempt to see some analogy to those cases or stories presented in your religion that may be utilized to justify actions proposed or undertaken. Religion doesn't really change or disrupt societies really, but rather it is used to simply justify, and stifle arguments against such, actions that can change or disrupt societies. Technologies on the other hand represent those actions, or proposals for actions that can effect change in and of themselves.

Consider the impacts of the world wide web. In approximately 1/4 century we have changed the ways in which people communicate and convey information, which in turn effected changes in business operations, personal behaviors, and the ways people interact. Even people who have no personal connection themselves to the internet, are effected by it at places of work, through the business interactions, and in public places where they shop, interact, or perform other personal functions. It has become a nearly comprehensive change in the knowledge we must retain, and the way we learn information, world wide. It rapidly created a huge knowledge gap between a couple of generations, and effected this change over a huge majority of the population of the planet during that very short period. The change is such that in much of the world you can not survive as well as you could have 20 years ago with out some involvement in and knowledge of the internet, which you realize is actually a substantial amount of knowledge whenever you try to educate elderly people on even those aspects we take as mundane.

Hello RCE,

You are very attached to my person. You want to convert me to something I don't need or want. At place of educate me, you should talk first with yourself, and ask who you are, second, what you are able to do? You have probably a family to teach something valueable to them. Wish them the best!

You have the difficulties to accept that someone else can think different ways than you do. This is disappointing! So fluid with words but cannot accept others' opinions. You are really frustrated! Don't dig (creuser in French) too much I already made my mind about what you cannot accept. Also, I am happy to get some influences from French people, their culture and habites. Also, I never copy someone's words without notifying. It's a big error from you to accuse me without knowing the truth!

You are absolutely right, more than 50% of the human population is influenced and affected by Christianity. Inquisition, colonization, slavery and other human degradation started with Crusaders, travellers on boats priests that converted without asking, and followed with selling people from one continent to another. You know, it's in every schoolbook, in every continent with different explanations.

I understand that I have to remember everything you tell me and kept as the only truth. Why do you want to convert me to Christianity? I born that way. When I was "ten days" old, my parents decided for me to what they wanted. I understand them but you, really not. You tell to everyone that we have deviations, different beliefs but I personally cannot think differently. You make me laugh!

THe WWWeb does something that everyone can appreciate. When someone is unpolite, you can shadow it, delete it, and forget. With religion you cannot do it. People with the Internet can communicate, learn, and be free to express their opinion. So, why you write me so long converting text. No impact on me and probably many other name you a "pusher of personnel ideas".

Thanks to talk to me and I learned what and how to do in the future. I still maintain that the "church" and "money", and in that order, were "disruptive technologies" following the approval of other blogger. I's not my fault! Oh, after my French I am tri-langual and can read little bit two more. I hope you speak at least two dozens of languages, isn't it? Cook and write me a long comments pretty soon, I am waiting with impatience, Gil.

What about fire, cooking, clothing, building shelters, flint tools, domesticating animals, farming arable crops, and, much later the wheel.

Randall wrote: "What about fire, cooking, clothing, building shelters, flint tools, domesticating animals, farming arable crops, and, much later the wheel."

Unless I misunderstood the question, we are being asked to identify any invention which when introduced, dramatically upset an existing accepted idea, process or methodology.

Anything that challenges attitudes or belief systems that are firmly entrenched and which a society has invested a lot of time and energy in sustaining, is by its very nature disruptive especially to those who have any attachment to it.

For example: Sterilization of medical equipment and washing ones hands prior to invasive surgery was a slap in the face of doctors when first introduced.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution caused a furor in communities whose spiritual convictions and belief in Creationism dominated everything from social behavior to scientific research; a theory which is still disruptive to some even today.

All the examples you provided are indeed highly significant advancements and worthy of appreciation. They did not, by themselves, appear to pose a serious threat to an existing idea.

Laughing Jaguar

You don't think that:

"We can't live much further North than the Mediterranean because it gets too cold.";
"We eat food raw, because that's all there is.";
"We can only eat/use animals we can catch in the wild.";
"We can only eat berries etc. where/when we happen to find them.";
"You can only use a stone as a tool if it happens to be the right shape when you find it.", or,
"The only way to move something is to carry it or drag it."

were existing accepted norms (albeit not expressed that way, certainly until there was an alternative) then?

Randall I am not disputing your logic. I agree with the importance of those things you cited. What is missing for me is the disruptive nature that I think is being asked for.

Unfortunately, we are left to speculate. . . . "disruptive how?" Socially? Industrially?

Given that lack of specificity, your responses are appropriate.

L.J.

I would suggest that the author means in general. The meaning of disruptive is relatively straight forward, as creating the greatest change for the greatest numbers of people in the least amount of time (thus requiring the greatest and most rapid changes in the way the majority of human beings conduct their lives). Obviously the entire population of the planet did not adapt to using stone tool within one or two generations (heck even the transition from the iron age bronze age across Europe took centuries, meaning you had bronze age communities only a few hundred miles from iron age communities). These are slow transitions even though they may have great impacts on the long term evolution.

Some things like air flight have had some major impacts buit even today remain relatively limited to the numbers of people they impact (yes it acts as a force multiplier in warfare, just like the tank or missile).

Obviously the automobile had a huge impact as in a century we went from a new technology to nearly every living human owning a car and most of them becoming dependant on that car for transport to work and provide the necessities of life ( a huge majority of americans drive more in one day to be able to work than most people in the 1880s would in a week or month).

The internet is a good example of a technology that developed so rapidly that it creates a huge rift in knowledge between a couple of generations (alive and working at the same time) across most of the population of the world.

However, I might suggest that some examples were not so disruptive in and of themselves and might be reconsidered, e.g. nuclear fission technologies, while a huge discovery, have had little actual impact, the threat/promise has had more impact then the actual technology.

Hello Jag,

You are fantastic! You help me to express my questions about all new things were created far behind our time. It was really disruptive the "wheel"? Come on! The word disruptive did not existed at that time, I am sure. Bet a quarter. You double it? OK, I follow with another quarter.

It's is possible they, parents, friends, and people in that community killed the person who show the wheel the first time. Guarrantee! It happened with Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilee, also to Darwin, and for sure Fleming, and I miss 99(9) others.

A new idea has difficulties to get in the minds of people by jalousie, ignorance, and personnel beliefs...

Now already arrived to the point where: We have to difine what is disruptive technology and what is not but still new? The following sentence will help us the get definition of what we talk. Read it, understand it, and return your opinion about the propositions.

"Anything that challenges attitudes or belief systems that are firmly entrenched and which a society has invested a lot of time and energy in sustaining, is by its very nature disruptive especially to those who have any attachment to it."

It's long but boys and girls, we have to work out, hard and efficient, and get to the real track to continue the blog, Gil.

Gil I am going to go out on a philosophical limb and suggest that what determines disruption is more in the eyes of those with attachments than anything intrinsic in the idea. And, it can be on both sides of innovation.

A teacher seeking tenure shot 6 others in a college in Alabama, killing 3. Her attachment to tenure disrupted a lot!

Had they been forced to give her tenure by some other less violent method, then they would have been the ones disrupted.

What irony: everyone is now disrupted! Some permanently!

L.J.

Gil Becker wrote: "

It's is possible they, parents, friends, and people in that community killed the person who show the wheel the first time. Guarantee! It happened with Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilee, also to Darwin, and for sure Fleming, and I miss 99(9) others.

A new idea has difficulties to get in the minds of people by jalousie, ignorance, and personnel beliefs..."

Ayn Rand felt the same way so you are in good company Gil.

She often expressed anger and frustration at Society's lack of appreciation for the creative generosity of intellectual benefactors. Galileo's imprisonment for example.

She suggested that the man who discovered and harnessed fire was probably rewarded by being burned at the stake.

The Laughing Jaguar

Hi Jag,

Semmelweiss is returning in its grave. It was so idiotically simple that today still we have many doctor forget to wash their hands between two contagious patients. It's funny after 150 years later with years of university education and years of practice!?

Where did you find this sentence? "Anything that challenges attitudes or belief systems that are firmly entrenched and which a society has invested a lot of time and energy in sustaining, is by its very nature disruptive especially to those who have any attachment to it." It's instructive and help to define practically everything. If is you that turned out, well done or jolly good, Jag. Thanks for free learning from Gil.

Hi Gil. Thanks for the acknowledgement but most of what I have learned in life was taught to me by others.

As for that statement, I think it was the Oriental Philosopher, Long Chen Pa, who said "It's our attachments that keep us stuck"

His assertion was validated in classes I taught in designing with computers.

Those with many years of pushing pencils on vellum had a lot more difficulty changing horses than the younger folks with less invested. Those who were preoccupied with looking good in front of others, managers mostly, really had problems.

That statement is simply the result of combining Pa's wisdom with my own experience.

Thanks

L.J.

Hi Randy,

It's fantastic in a long sentence but slow down! First, give us some suggestions. We have to choose in order of date or in order of importance. Please, just dump things around is easy but have a precise opinion is another story. We don't want to create psychological disruption in the technological disruption. So, write down your orders, preferences, and we will help you to establish the final order of things that disrupted technologically so much this Earthy humanity. We are impatiently waiting, Gil.

............the "Top Ten Disruptive Technologies" of all time. Included are: The magnetic stripe card, gun powder, iron smelting, rubber, X-rays, the microprocessor, electricity, nuclear fission, flight, and the Internet............

The qualified 'of all time' suggests to me that the original list should be rethought. Several of the items listed are not the most disruptive of all time.

Specifically, 'the magnetic stripe card', 'rubber', and 'x-rays' should come off the list.

Farming, animal husbandry, spoken language, written language, math, triangular sails, occupational specialization, and government are definitely each more disruptive than those suggested for removal.

Benbenben

From what I've been reading lately, I suspect Bioengineering will probably near or at the top of the list before too long, and stay there for quite a while. Just a thought.

Er, um how about warfare. That's pretty disruptive!

Hi Mike,

I agree on warfare. We have war somewhere all the time. However, to go in war against someone else, we have to collect money, buy or manufacture the arms and other necessities. Get people to our idea, and only after that, we can establish the target to attack. The first, or one of the first function of humanity is dominate the other, mainly the majority oppress the minority. Oh! I discover another war! Revolution! Revolution is the opposite of war. The minority squeezee the majority. You see Mike, we have war all the time.

What's the next? Gil.

I'd nominate the microphone and loud speaker. When George Harrison asked Andre Segovia what he thought of the electric guitar, Segovia replied that he had no problem with it - but that having lived through General Francisco Franco's rule he had serious problems with the 'electric voice'.

It all seems to be a point of view issue

Taking "a World View" I'd say 'erectus' as in Homo e.

Thank god they're nearly extinct

Randall suggested "Printing press?"

Absolutely. . .

My initial perspective was admittedly myopic. While the contribution of the printing press was enormous and brought knowledge to the "unwashed", it also broke the stranglehold of the Church and others of wealth who were the sole source of books and niggardly in sharing them. I see that my earlier perspective was too narrowly focused.

Printing instigated reading skills and thus promoted the dissemination of information to communities. That in turn furthered political movements that threatened tyrannical rule by abusive political systems and entrenched royal families. It helped topple countries like France.

Something can be viewed as both beneficial and disruptive and the printing press warrants being on the list. It was most disruptive to the Church and to the rule by the few, especially despotic power exercised by small and privileged families. It helped to destroy government oligarchy.

It goes to show that there is a Yin and Yang to many things. Now that I am able to see the real scope of the inquiry, many candidates arise for consideration, not the least being the Internet which has proved extremely beneficial to me but is disruptive to the extent that it often distracts me and others thus diverting our attention and energy that should be spent elsewhere.

Thanks Randall! I needed that!

L.J.

tech·nol·o·gy (tk-nl-j)n. pl. tech·nol·o·gies

1. a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.

3. Anthropology; The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

^{_{The American Heritage® Dictionary}}

I don't think "faith/influence based" systems Fit

However the demands driven by "Faith Based Greed" - Churches, Politics, Marketing, NASDAQ Scams, Rorts and War", may cause new technology to evolve/devolve.

E.g. Better Sacrificial Knives, improved Stone Masonry for bigger Cathedrals, better paints for Principal Portraits, better armoured bigger Limousines and raised Pointless Kudos based Waste.

Therefore top of this 'causative pyramid' is Mans' Acquisitive Nature = Greed.

If you're 'thin on science', greed invents the 'influence based' solution.

But; the "Topic" is not about what caused the 'invention/solution' but the impact of the invention solution.

I.e. the impact of a piece of "Science" (knowledge) that has been "Designed" (applied/engineered to fit an end goal)

"Disruptive" is the grey area- Disruptive to what?

The flow of greed?

The Bio system?

The progress of science it self?

The Status Quo of one or more "faith systems"?

In that sense, all "new" is disruptive.

So the argument becomes how you rank/value, the the systems.

Take DDT and it's descendant technologies - inc PCB's - dioxins - agricultural addiction - self poisoning of man (short term), biosphere decimation (still growing)

"Balanced" against this is the welfare of huge pyramid of employment and 'acquisition ability flow'.

So it's a case of:

It disrupted "this or that"

Your relative knowledge of "this or that"

Then; which "this or that" you put first.

Couple of things of note: PCBs are not a descendant technology of DDT, and for that matter nor is Dioxin based on definition used above. Dioxins are a waste byproduct of thermal degradation and some manufacturing pathways, it does not have any commercial applications. Also, you should note that since the stop of usage, while eagles have been making a come back (though increased enforcement of protections could also be part of the cause), pests such as Bed Bugs have been making a huge come back, and actually expanding their range now. So I am not sure that the most disruptive would be so narrowly construed as to relate only to the perception of impacts against eagles. Our lack understanding by biologists of things like the interaction of organisms in the biosphere tends to lead us unfortunately to the misbelief that the extinction of one organism could (and frequently activists tend to take the perspective that it definitely will) cause the collapse of the entire biosphere, though it doesn't seem to have happened in our past and other organisms frequent tend to fill any vacated niches. The real underlying value that is generally accepted is the impact to human beings. Even when we discuss ecological activism, in order to justify the activism they try to form some linkage, usually extremely tenuous, to impacts on human beings (or try to create some kind of impact that would not have been considered previously). So we can look at those technologies that have the most impact or change in human activities, and disruption implies a rapid change rather than a slow evolution, at least more rapid than some majority of the people can adapt to the changes.

As one who works in the printing technologies industry I would have to include ink jet printing technology. Not only has it nearly killed the offset printing industry by allowing businesses and people to print their own materials, it has virtually eliminated large scale screen printing and many other centuries old printing systems, and stands poised to provide alternative methods of manufacture of items we have not even imagined yet. Manufactured food products and their packaging, printed circuits, polymer surface modification and myriad unimagined decorative functions are just a few examples of what this technology is beginning to provide for us.

Though the process of printing en masse was probavbly vastly more disruptive as it allowed the knowledge of the past to be conveyed to the masses more rapidly, and allowed people to express ideas public to large masses that before they would not have been able to communicate rapidly the information or concept (or rantings). The ink jet is just an evolution of printing technology that was consistent with the typical high end technical education tenets of open and public availability of knowledge and technologies. It is the fact that many technical leaders of that time period developed technologies for the masses rather than focusing on the low profit margin, high cost business related technologies. The higher profitability and higher volume of the demand for better public technologies drove a much more rapid development to meet those needs in many facet. Laser printers made public that can provide high end photo quality reproductions even more rapidly drove the decline of privatized printing, as people can process high end graphics from their homes. However, I am not sure that this is a greatly disruptive technology, as people were already driving its development in mass and prepared to receive it. Print in general had already been substantially in decline corresponding with the internet and home computing technology growth, which had substamntially cut back the amount of professional printing being performed (as Newpapers and magazines represented at one time the highest volume and technology drivers behind printing). In essence you are kind of describing something sticking another needle into an already dying beast, where everyone foresaw the impending death many decades before.

[ p ] try it. you'll like it.

Otherwise Ink Jet!

Masses!

Faucets!

Dying Beasts!

I need some Bics and pencels!

Hi T,

Interesting and may be disruptive! What means "p"? The "pencil" is really a good and disruptive idea too. Imagine two different material, graphite and wood with some glue and hi-tech cotings to hide defects. Genial! Aha, originally the guy wanted to make a hole in the piece of wood? No, you are joking?! Do you speak French? Also, within a few years we have to go to the museum to see a "pencil", computer will replace it fast! The rest is not very interesting but wait for your suggestion or I missed some opportunities with them? Let me know, Gil.

To get line breaks using some programs like Safari, one must put a bracket [ then a p then a ] bracket. Otherwise the CR4 program will eliminate whitespace and cause lumps of words, hard to read.

Actually the pencil is a terrific device. Actually the pencil will never ever be obsolete.

In fact caskets will become obsolete before pencils.

I think Illya was thinking beyond the use of ink jet printers to create graphics, to the emerging use of similar technologies to 'print' 3D prototypes of products under development. In some cases 3D printing is a good choice for the manufacturing process. Speaking of ink jets and food products, I had a pizza once that tasted like....

Hi John,

By reading your message; I cannot tell you: I will reproduce your special pizza and call it home made "Disruptive Pizza" for 3D watchers. Only Saturdays! Thanks for the suggestion, Gil.

I'm inclined to agree with illya and johnfotl. Take a look at this:-

http://wapedia.mobi/en/RepRap_Project

----------------------EXTRACT------------------------------------

The RepRap Project is an initiative aimed at creating a largely self-replicating machine which can be used for rapid prototyping and manufacturing. A rapid prototyper is a 3D printer that is able to fabricate three dimensional artefacts from a computer-based model.

----------------------------SNIP----------------------------------------------

Adrian Bowyer reckons you can make one for under $500

(But not if you buy the printed parts from him on ebay . Looks like a licence to print money)

Hi Randall,

If is a "self-replicating machine" to first creation is enough. It makes copy one after the other at in time, isn't it? Send me one, please, Gil.