The issue of choosing between simple and complex solutions or products seems to have come up a few times recently, and given my advancing years I'm begining to favour simplicity over complex things, if only to save time faffing about new technology, learning it, updating it, finding answers to difficult technical issues.
So which if any 'pole' do you tend towards and in which areas of life ?
Here's a good example, I'd call it the anti-iphone; I'd buy one of these at the drop of a hat to replace my aging phone, rather than plump for a 'smartphone' :
http://www.spareonephone.com/ (http://www.spareonephone.com/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spareonephone.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2Fred%2F16.jpg&hash=04b606c47762c08a8ae181de8dae80b5adc25de9)
Fuck you, ad spam bot.
I definitely prefer a simple phone, I'm on the internet enough and I'm cheap.
I suppose I prefer simplicity. My phone's like six years old. I have few material desires, or at least serious material ambitions. I like handjobs.
I want simplicity. I hate that I'm surrounded by so much useless shit. The first thing I'm going to do when, God willing, I get a flat of my own is a mega-purge :mmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2012, 07:32:19 PM
I want simplicity. I hate that I'm surrounded by so much useless shit. The first thing I'm going to do when, God willing, I get a flat of my own is a mega-purge :mmm:
Yes I came to this realisation a while back, stuff just gets in the way. <_<
I wish my iPad could fellate me.
I like stuff that is simple and highly usable on the surface but if you want to do more is very complex.
And no. Not Apple.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 07:53:52 PM
I like stuff that is simple and highly usable on the surface but if you want to do more is very complex.
And no. Not Apple.
Paradox games? :D
It's definitely a trend with me; I just converted a multi-geared bike (whole drive train knackered) to a single speed bike for about $25 and it's proving really useful.
The simplicity of the build makes it more responsive, quieter, less to go wrong and there's less to think about, so now I've noticed I'm spending more time thinking about and changing my balance to improve manoeuvrability. :cool:
Meh, most of my telephones are older than most of you. Same goes with my typewriters.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 09, 2012, 07:22:54 PM
I definitely prefer a simple phone, I'm on the internet enough and I'm cheap.
How about no cell phone. I dont have one anymore nor do I need one.
Tech gadgets are cool.
I hate my Android phone with a passion and regret buying it but if I wasn't transporting myself between sources of the Internets via 15 minutes cartrips, I would probably find it more useful. Or if it's GPS actually worked.
So don't be a luddite. While you moan and wish for "simplicity" you forget stuff like trying to get hold of someone urengtly without cellphones, or trying to make an informed purchase decision without the Internet.
Or getting your hands on p0rn.
"Simplicity" is the wrong word. Tech stuff make things simpler. You might not be able to cope with the speed of it all, but that still is the case.
Man, sometimes I wonder what I'd be doing if the Internet didn't exist. I'd either be a lot better off, or a hell of a lot worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ15vUjgqvw
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2012, 10:14:20 PM
It's definitely a trend with me; I just converted a multi-geared bike (whole drive train knackered) to a single speed bike for about $25 and it's proving really useful.
God, I fucking hate hipsters. You can be a useless, cheap loser but don't make a fucking virtue out of it.
Dropping hte Marty attitude: what is the point of turning a multispeed bike into a single speed one? Honestly.
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Why not replace it?? :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Removing the faulty part and degrading your machinery to a less functional one is not "fixing" :P
I don't really see the virtue in the multiple speed bikes, mine have had parts always slipping around and never were as easy to control or as much fun as the one I used to ride as a kid.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/385460_2938369909519_1569276284_32826043_1009766001_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/400068_2938371189551_1569276284_32826044_1217121799_n.jpg)
Why would a picture of a failed ex-leader of a failed fascist homophobic party be a picture of "gay Polish lawyer"?
Also, you made too many typos there. Fail. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2012, 05:29:00 AM
Why would a picture of a failed ex-leader of a failed fascist homophobic party be a picture of "gay Polish lawyer"?
Also, you made too many typos there. Fail. :lol:
Adds to the value of the card
QuoteWhy would a picture of a failed ex-leader of a failed fascist homophobic party be a picture of "gay Polish lawyer"?
Irony
Quote from: Tamas on January 10, 2012, 03:46:17 AM
So don't be a luddite.
Meh, I manage an operations center that monitors assets through North America and sits on a $25m data center. I'm up to my black ass in technology. Being a Luddite maintains sanity.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2012, 04:29:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Why not replace it?? :huh:
Derailleur gears used off road, pick up a lot of mud and water, the system is taking the chain to within 4-5 inches of the ground, so the whole thing needs cleaning often and wears rapidly.
Whereas a single speed, is far less prone to this and more efficient in that the most common gear you use is the one you set it up for, and because it is straighter, stronger and less likely to be a warn system.
Beside this is only a hack/pub bike, if I hadn't bodged it up, I'd have recycled it/chucked it in the dumpster.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 08:19:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2012, 04:29:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Why not replace it?? :huh:
Derailleur gears used off road, pick up a lot of mud and water, the system is taking the chain to within 4-5 inches of the ground, so the whole thing needs cleaning often and wears rapidly.
Whereas a single speed, is far less prone to this and more efficient in that the most common gear you use is the one you set it up for, and because it is straighter, stronger and less likely to be a warn system.
Beside this is only a hack/pub bike, if I hadn't bodged it up, I'd have recycled it/chucked it in the dumpster.
Got ya. Makes sense. We use are cannondale's 70/30 on road/off-road on the bike patrol.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2012, 08:22:22 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 08:19:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2012, 04:29:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Why not replace it?? :huh:
Derailleur gears used off road, pick up a lot of mud and water, the system is taking the chain to within 4-5 inches of the ground, so the whole thing needs cleaning often and wears rapidly.
Whereas a single speed, is far less prone to this and more efficient in that the most common gear you use is the one you set it up for, and because it is straighter, stronger and less likely to be a warn system.
Beside this is only a hack/pub bike, if I hadn't bodged it up, I'd have recycled it/chucked it in the dumpster.
Got ya. Makes sense. We use are cannondale's 70/30 on road/off-road on the bike patrol.
Nice practical bikes. :)
Quote from: Tamas on January 10, 2012, 04:35:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 04:26:33 AM
He said in the damned post, you foreigners. The drive train was fucked up. He fixed it. Christ.
Removing the faulty part and degrading your machinery to a less functional one is not "fixing" :P
Actually the bike was so poorly designed, the parts so mismatched, it was designed to fail early; it had the widest bottom bracket I've ever seen on a bike, probably just some rubbish they had lying around, so I put in a new sealed 110mm one which is actually right for the frame, the set, me and smoother to boot.
He's what you need to know about single speed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_speed_bicycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_speed_bicycle)
They are painfully associated with poseur cyclists in London. Victoria Park looks like it's a road race there's so many of them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:21:38 AM
They are painfully associated with poseur cyclists in London. Victoria Park looks like it's a road race there's so many of them.
Those will almost certain be fixed gear bikes rather than single speed. ;)
Fixed speed makes sense for bike couriers in London, they don't make sense for fashionable women in designer shoes.
I like simple shit.
I go for simple items over complex. I want to be able to use something quickly and easily without having to learn a lot of controls for it or keep a manual handy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2012, 04:55:03 AM
I don't really see the virtue in the multiple speed bikes, mine have had parts always slipping around and never were as easy to control or as much fun as the one I used to ride as a kid.
I had a bike in my youth, sort of, which had a replacement chain that was too large. Obviously the whole mechanism was grabbing and slipping randomly, which instilled in me the lifetime fear of bikes.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2012, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2012, 04:55:03 AM
I don't really see the virtue in the multiple speed bikes, mine have had parts always slipping around and never were as easy to control or as much fun as the one I used to ride as a kid.
I had a bike in my youth, sort of, which had a replacement chain that was too large. Obviously the whole mechanism was grabbing and slipping randomly, which instilled in me the lifetime fear of bikes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2Fpublic%2Fo1vd-MHEmXO0vM6u6TCq3kDQt_lRw2k_Skj_itBDh9fJB9zinUjhJTd7X3jrMNu_9BgnyoefLBFb--2k1vuInA6VCUw78-vwh_ZmxZ01t4j2SGBmObA2bJx_qnq53oDXTL-pOTFxXjtGzrHQmp8dHlo7VujsdyxsRPDEwswa1l4&hash=8b33ea71c0067e4262bd5a57600bd6e423f700e0)
?
This was Soviet Union, man. It's not like you could just walk into a store and buy, well, anything. If you could buy spare parts easily, then it would've made sense to buy the chain of proper length in the first place.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
This was Soviet Union, man. It's not like you could just walk into a store and buy, well, anything. If you could buy spare parts easily, then it would've made sense to buy the chain of proper length in the first place.
Not withstanding it being the Soviet Union. :cool: :Embarrass: <_< Invariable the chain isn't the 'proper' length so you have to use one of those tools to make it so.
Fuck simplicity. Millions of poor people over centuries didn't have lives of squalor and tedium building the future of complexity that I live in for nothing.
You want me to turn my back on all the peasants of the past? You are a cruel, heartless bastard, Mongers.
Quote from: PDH on January 10, 2012, 01:34:37 PM
Fuck simplicity. Millions of poor people over centuries didn't have lives of squalor and tedium building the future of complexity that I live in for nothing.
You want me to turn my back on all the peasants of the past? You are a cruel, heartless bastard, Mongers.
You know skis are rather simple things, maybe you should invent some gps enabled, motorised ones for your feet. :P
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
If I wanted to live a simple life I would live in a mud hut and hunted my own food... as long as I had highspeed internet for my PS3 and my 47" HD TV.
So which Android smart phone do you guys suggest? I am not sure if I really need one of the 500 euro models of if a 300 euro model is enough.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 01:45:46 PM
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
The dilemma, of course, is which things are better complex and which are better when simple. Apparently opinions differ.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 01:45:46 PM
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
The dilemma, of course, is which things are better complex and which are better when simple. Apparently opinions differ.
Well put, much better than the way I framed the question in the OP. cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 01:45:46 PM
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
The dilemma, of course, is which things are better complex and which are better when simple. Apparently opinions differ.
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 01:45:46 PM
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
The dilemma, of course, is which things are better complex and which are better when simple. Apparently opinions differ.
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
But what is meant by simple. I am coming to love my Iphone because it is simple to use but it is a rather complex piece of technology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 01:45:46 PM
I don't understand why this is dilemma. Some things are better when simpler, some are better when more complex. :huh:
The dilemma, of course, is which things are better complex and which are better when simple. Apparently opinions differ.
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
But what is meant by simple. I am coming to love my Iphone because it is simple to use but it is a rather complex piece of technology.
Indeed. Really there seems to be no real outline here of what we're talking about.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 03:47:54 AM
Man, sometimes I wonder what I'd be doing if the Internet didn't exist. I'd either be a lot better off, or a hell of a lot worse.
I'd be more productive, but a lot more bored.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 01:44:20 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 10, 2012, 01:34:37 PM
Fuck simplicity. Millions of poor people over centuries didn't have lives of squalor and tedium building the future of complexity that I live in for nothing.
You want me to turn my back on all the peasants of the past? You are a cruel, heartless bastard, Mongers.
You know skis are rather simple things, maybe you should invent some gps enabled, motorised ones for your feet. :P
You want simple skis, strap two barrel staves to your feet.
You want complex skis, get composite fiber skis with variable edges for telemarking if need be (I am assuming cross country here).
Fuck simplicity. It causes splinters.
Yeah, skis are a good example of something that is simple to use (just strap the suckers on) but for a really nice skiing experience you would want the skis the are complex in design and manufacture.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Not per the opening context of this thread. The first post was explicitly against the complexity of smartphones.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Not per the opening context of this thread. The first post was explicitly against the complexity of smartphones.
Yeah, but I said Apple in particular because I think they're good at avoiding 'faffing about new technology, learning it, updating it, finding answers to difficult technical issues'. Their design in my experience is simple and intuitive, even though there's a lot going on behind the screen. So I think mongers and I would disagree on our definition of simple. For me it's more like uncluttered.
I imagine it takes quite a lot of thought to make a single speed bike worth it, though it is the 'simpler' option.
Edit: Another example would be modernism, which I love in part for its simplicity. But I know it's taken a long time and a lot of science to get to the point where we can build Unite d'Habitation, but I'd still consider that fundamentally 'simple' and that that's the point of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Remember this was a product in its last iteration that could only be held in a certain way, otherwise its core functionality of being a cellphone wouldn't actually work. Had the designers spend so much time designing something with all many bells and whistles that they'd forgotten to test its basic functions ?
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Remember this was a product in its last iteration that could only be held in a certain way, otherwise its core functionality of being a cellphone wouldn't actually work. Had the designers spend so much time designing something with all so many bells and whistles that they'd forgotten to test its basic functions ?
you'd have to hold the phone in such a awkward and impractical way to render it useless as a cell phone. if i saw someone holding it in such a fashion it'd question their mental faculties.
Quote from: HVC on January 10, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Remember this was a product in its last iteration that could only be held in a certain way, otherwise its core functionality of being a cellphone wouldn't actually work. Had the designers spend so much time designing something with all so many bells and whistles that they'd forgotten to test its basic functions ?
you'd have to hold the phone in such a awkward and impractical way to render it useless as a cell phone. if i saw someone holding it in such a fashion it'd question their mental faculties.
Then why did Apple actually give away for free a case to over come the problem and in the latest models that way of building the antenna has been abandoned ?
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 10, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Remember this was a product in its last iteration that could only be held in a certain way, otherwise its core functionality of being a cellphone wouldn't actually work. Had the designers spend so much time designing something with all so many bells and whistles that they'd forgotten to test its basic functions ?
you'd have to hold the phone in such a awkward and impractical way to render it useless as a cell phone. if i saw someone holding it in such a fashion it'd question their mental faculties.
Then why did Apple actually give away for free a case to over come the problem and in the latest models that way of building the antenna has been abandoned ?
I don't really understand how one design flaw that was later rectified has any role in this.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 10, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I don't know. Most people in this thread have said they like simple things.
Yeah, but I agree with CC. I think Apple's great virtue is that they make simple products.
Remember this was a product in its last iteration that could only be held in a certain way, otherwise its core functionality of being a cellphone wouldn't actually work. Had the designers spend so much time designing something with all so many bells and whistles that they'd forgotten to test its basic functions ?
you'd have to hold the phone in such a awkward and impractical way to render it useless as a cell phone. if i saw someone holding it in such a fashion it'd question their mental faculties.
Then why did Apple actually give away for free a case to over come the problem and in the latest models that way of building the antenna has been abandoned ?
Get some PR back for the blown out of proportion reactions. You'd literally have to cover 3 sides of the phone, and even then you wouldn't lose the singal in most casses, just get a bad one. i have one of these phones, as do several of my friends. i have never had the issues bitched about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Not per the opening context of this thread. The first post was explicitly against the complexity of smartphones.
......
I imagine it takes quite a lot of thought to make a single speed bike worth it, though it is the 'simpler' option.
......
I'm not sure it is, sometimes the simple solution is the best, cheapest, quickest, most obvious solution to a specific problem.
But most bikes are sold as consumer durables, where a longer list of functions and specifications, wins out over simpler designs, the consumers thinks they're getting more, where as it's just extra stuff they have to move with their own limited motive power.
So many people end up with a bike that has 27+ gears (many not usable), front and rear suspension and impressive looking tyres rather than asking someone experience to help them find the bike for their needs.
Quote from: garbon link=topic=6761.msg361885#msg361885
I don't really understand how one design flaw that was later rectified has any role in this.
But why make that mistake in the first place with something thats the defining function of a phone ? Most other manufacturers seemed to have been able to avoid that problem.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: garbon link=topic=6761.msg361885#msg361885
I don't really understand how one design flaw that was later rectified has any role in this.
But why make that mistake in the first place with something thats the defining function of a phone ? Most other manufacturers seemed to have been able to avoid that problem.
I think that's a side question and not really on about simplicity or lack thereof.
I think as smartphones have shown the defining function of a phone is evolving. Much in the same way that the internet evolved the defining function of a computer.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: garbon link=topic=6761.msg361885#msg361885
I don't really understand how one design flaw that was later rectified has any role in this.
But why make that mistake in the first place with something thats the defining function of a phone ? Most other manufacturers seemed to have been able to avoid that problem.
If it was just a phone it would not make my life more simple. The fact that it is so much more than a phone and it is simple to use does simplify my life.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Not per the opening context of this thread. The first post was explicitly against the complexity of smartphones.
......
I imagine it takes quite a lot of thought to make a single speed bike worth it, though it is the 'simpler' option.
......
I'm not sure it is, sometimes the simple solution is the best, cheapest, quickest, most obvious solution to a specific problem.
But most bikes are sold as consumer durables, where a longer list of functions and specifications, wins out over simpler designs, the consumers thinks they're getting more, where as it's just extra stuff they have to move with their own limited motive power.
So many people end up with a bike that has 27+ gears (many not usable), front and rear suspension and impressive looking tyres rather than asking someone experience to help them find the bike for their needs.
heh, I remember back when I was a kid and the amount of "gears" your bike had was seen as how good your bike was and a defining status symbol.
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:32:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Not per the opening context of this thread. The first post was explicitly against the complexity of smartphones.
......
I imagine it takes quite a lot of thought to make a single speed bike worth it, though it is the 'simpler' option.
......
I'm not sure it is, sometimes the simple solution is the best, cheapest, quickest, most obvious solution to a specific problem.
But most bikes are sold as consumer durables, where a longer list of functions and specifications, wins out over simpler designs, the consumers thinks they're getting more, where as it's just extra stuff they have to move with their own limited motive power.
So many people end up with a bike that has 27+ gears (many not usable), front and rear suspension and impressive looking tyres rather than asking someone experience to help them find the bike for their needs.
heh, I remember back when I was a kid and the amount of "gears" your bike had was seen as how good your bike was and a defining status symbol.
Oddly I popped out this afternoon to a town 10 miles away, to pick up something and it only took me 35-36 minutes to get back, I'd assumed a single speed would have been a lot slower.