Isn't technology just great? I mean, seriously, its awesome. Right now I'm writing pointless babble on a software generated screen on a household device capable of performing millions of calculations a second and rendering them into visually understandable metaphors for the average human, which is in turn in constant communication with millions of similar devices all over this planet, exchanging data at near lightspeed, and all so people can download porn or illegal movies, chat on MSN, check facebook or read my irrelevant blog.
Which they do, it seems. According to my reports, this blog has been read in the UK, USA, Canada, France, Poland, Australia, Romania and Korea to date. So Hello, Howdy, Hello again, Bonjour, Powitanie, G'Day, Hallo and 여보세요, respectively.
Moors Law dictates that technology is getting more impressive at a greater rate. It used to be War that caused this, as better technology gives you a tactical advantage, and that's still the case, but now it's capitalism that seems to be the greater driver. Anyone who reads Dilbert will know how desperate people who aren't responsible for making it are for the next big technological breakthrough. Its kind of sad in a way, that so much time, energy, expense and effort goes into making something as impressive and compact as your standard mobile phone, and it's largely used by teenage girls to send messages like "Hi babe, C U L8r lolz x ;)".
But when they put their minds to it, Engineers can make things that are technologically breathtaking whilst simultaneously being fantastically pointless. As in the example at the start of the article. So much time and effort put into making something which is at best a laboured metaphor which has very short term use, because once you've seen it... But what about art? What are most works of art if not impressive things that have no use other than to exist? The fact that they were done justifies them, nothing else can be asked of it. Why should technology or science be any different? Well, Art probably won't end up accidentally producing a doomsday device, so there is that argument, but even so.
But still. The only way is up, assuming society doesn't collapse. Technology gets bigger and better, or actually smaller and faster, definitely not bigger and arguably better, depends on what you consider as 'better' I suppose. If you think something that can do more things in half the time is better, then yes. If you think something that can do the job for which it is intended with minimum fuss without breaking down for unknown reasons every ten minutes is better, then maybe not.
But all new technological gizmos must survive past birth. Tomorrow new invention could be the next iPod or the next Betamax. Although do you think the iPod was always going to be called that? My guess it was just going to be the Pod, but on the patent application it was meant to be in italics, Pod, but was written in a hurry by someone who wasn't used to keyboard shortcuts.
That's a real slow burner that one, you might chuckle to yourself later on tonight. Although you probably won't.
Which they do, it seems. According to my reports, this blog has been read in the UK, USA, Canada, France, Poland, Australia, Romania and Korea to date. So Hello, Howdy, Hello again, Bonjour, Powitanie, G'Day, Hallo and 여보세요, respectively.
Moors Law dictates that technology is getting more impressive at a greater rate. It used to be War that caused this, as better technology gives you a tactical advantage, and that's still the case, but now it's capitalism that seems to be the greater driver. Anyone who reads Dilbert will know how desperate people who aren't responsible for making it are for the next big technological breakthrough. Its kind of sad in a way, that so much time, energy, expense and effort goes into making something as impressive and compact as your standard mobile phone, and it's largely used by teenage girls to send messages like "Hi babe, C U L8r lolz x ;)".
But when they put their minds to it, Engineers can make things that are technologically breathtaking whilst simultaneously being fantastically pointless. As in the example at the start of the article. So much time and effort put into making something which is at best a laboured metaphor which has very short term use, because once you've seen it... But what about art? What are most works of art if not impressive things that have no use other than to exist? The fact that they were done justifies them, nothing else can be asked of it. Why should technology or science be any different? Well, Art probably won't end up accidentally producing a doomsday device, so there is that argument, but even so.
But still. The only way is up, assuming society doesn't collapse. Technology gets bigger and better, or actually smaller and faster, definitely not bigger and arguably better, depends on what you consider as 'better' I suppose. If you think something that can do more things in half the time is better, then yes. If you think something that can do the job for which it is intended with minimum fuss without breaking down for unknown reasons every ten minutes is better, then maybe not.
But all new technological gizmos must survive past birth. Tomorrow new invention could be the next iPod or the next Betamax. Although do you think the iPod was always going to be called that? My guess it was just going to be the Pod, but on the patent application it was meant to be in italics, Pod, but was written in a hurry by someone who wasn't used to keyboard shortcuts.
That's a real slow burner that one, you might chuckle to yourself later on tonight. Although you probably won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment