An Interesting Dilemma

Stephen Hawking went on record as saying that the human race needs to abandon Earth and expand to other planets to ensure their contued existence. That's all fine and dandy, but the thought just occured to me. How on earth (as a saying, not literally!) can we have the infrastructure of technology on a new planet? Think of the logistics of this. I originally half in jest thought of there being no Internet access on NewEarth, but think of the ramifications of society having to revert to a technologically stunted environment.

I ponder how long it would take to get an infrastructure in place to support the technology that we're used to.

But then again, the thought of having a technologically immature society isn't all together unappealing.

...and in Today's SPAM

I can choose to:
- get breast implants
- join an art school
- get a free travel kit when I join the American Association of Retired Person, despite the fact that I am neither American nor Retired
- hire a local contractor to paint
or
- become a social worker.

I just LOVE spam and how it enriches my life.

I think that I'll go with the art school!

Social Networking

I have enough of a problem with Twitter and this constant need to see and broadcast the minutia of one's lives, but I guess whatever floats your boat.  It seems odd, and way too much (spoken as ex-Tweeter).

Next, came Four-Square.  For the un-initiated, you go to your smartphone and you "check in" when you're at some geographic location (i.e. "hey, I'm at Burger King at  Yonge and Dundas!").  I guess the general concept is that you can see if any of your four-square network is in the same geographical location so that you can hook-up.  Umm - not always such a good idea.  I'm waiting for the "criminal element" to tap into this and say "hmm, John can't be at two places at once, so if he's four-squared THERE - he can't be at home" sort of thing.

Next, we have an app called GetGlue where you broadcast and announce what you're watching on the tube or reading or listening too.  I don't know - I suppose a bit harmless I guess, but doesn't this almost fall into the TMI category?

What's next?  Broadcasting announcements of bodily functions?  Well - actually...I did see an app on the iTunes store for this purpose, so you can see who else is ummm, shall we delicately say "indisposed and sitting on the throne".

Don't get it - and I don't know that I WANT to get it.

The Facebook Behemoth

I was just on the elevator a few moments ago.  One of those VDT had a quick story about how Google was in talks with "others" to put together a social network to compete with Facebook.

My first thought - wow - talk about going after THE de facto standard of social networks!  Facebook recently announced that they now have 500 million member.  Firstly, this is a dubious number at best.  How many of those are accounts that are deleted, but not REALLY deleted (by the way, Facebook accounts can be physically deleted instead of being made inactive - I've deleted mine).  That not-withstanding, that is one WHACK of a lot of users.  I have to imagine that this would fall under the "this is an uphill climb" scenario.

I would suppose that if there was any one that could put forth a challenge to Facebook it would be Google and their mystery colloborators.

I am going to very interested to follow this.  I'm fascinated to see exactly how Google & friends propose to steal market share.

The Art of Technology...or Should That Be...The Technology of Art?

First of all, disclaimer time – as those who know me personally can attest, I am not a very artistic person, so my view on this subject might be totally inaccurate, naive or just plain stupid. That having been said, none of that has ever stopped me from voicing my opinion in the past, so it’s certainly not going to start censoring myself now!


One evening, perhaps a month or so ago, I was on the subway on my way home. Almost immediately upon entering the subway car, I noticed a young man – presumably a student engrossed with his digital camera.

For awhile, I watched him – curious as I’m not only interested in technology but also in photography. I noticed him reviewing one particular photograph on the LCD screen and he applied digital filter after filter (sepia, B&W, distortions, etc...) and I became quite fascinated with how he was able to quickly change the whole tone of the picture.

My gut reaction as I watched him apply these filters was that this was way cool. To a large extent, I think it opens up new worlds to the photographer. One could instantly see the myriad of alternatives for the photograph. Now...before I proceed with my concerns, I will be quite honest that when I can afford it, I will be right in line for a Digital 35mm SLR and I’ll likely be doing the exact same thing with my photographs.

As I travelled on the subway, I started thinking a little bit more about this. I came to the realization that as with just about everything else in our life, technology has forever changed yet another aspect of our life – the arts. Where this is sometimes (and quite often is) a good thing, it still comes with a price.

What is art?

As a person who is not terribly artistic, my definition of art would be the sharing of one person’s thoughts and views – a way to express our inner emotions and ideas. Any form of art could be expressed with this very general and high level definition, be it graphics arts, performance arts, literature or art in any other form. I understand that art is so much more than this and I have probably over-simplified, but bare with me.

As demonstrated by watching this young man manipulate his photographs, it became apparent to me that one of the greatest strengths of technology and art is that it gives the artist the freedom and the flexibility to try different things, to find that “version” of their product that best expresses their views. What this article is about is that this is actually a double-edged sword.

The problem lies in that this ease of use allows the artist to continually refine their piece of art. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but what this mean is that the artist can continually edit their photograph (or manuscript), fine tuning it and editing some more, looking for that “perfect” piece of art.

My concern is that the more that the artist manipulates their product, the less it becomes their view or thoughts at that point in time. Further, given the ease of use of being able to edit their work – is it every truly finished?

I enjoy writing – and I’ve done a bit of it. One of my frustrations is that my writing is never really finished. I continually go back to it, tweak it, clean it up or add some thoughts. With each edit, my writings no longer represent the original idea. I wonder how “A Christmas Carol” would have turned out if Charles Dickens had written it on a word processor as opposed to pen and paper. I expect that writing with on paper and writing on a word processor is a totally different thing.

Another case in point – I love to paint – especially abstracts. This is a case where my art is created using traditional methods. All I need is my paper, brushes, my acrylics and a dose of hyperactivity in conjunction with something that I needed to express.

When I paint, I paint. Once I am finished with a piece, there is no going back – ever. Although probably very primitive and amateurish, there can be no doubt that my artwork is reflective of my mood and thoughts as per that hour of frenzy – of that you can be sure.

Technology is a great thing, but I think that it’s important to keep technology in its own context and never forget about the importance of keeping some humanity as well.

New Blogger Features

I can FINALLY see stats for my blog - see if anyone else actually reads this crud :)

Last few blog posts - apparently not so many lol, but then again, my writing has been sporadic due to lots of stuff going on in my "real life".

Stay tuned - will try to blog more.

Production Costs for Technology

This is what confused and concerns me.  India has unveiled a prototype of a $35 touch screen table - hoping to release in 2011. 

This tablet will be on the very low end (in terms of technology), but the questions remains...HOW is this even possible?  There's something here that doesn't make sense.

My first thought was "oh - this is because third world labour - paying people like $3/day in India to produce". 

I'm sure that is part of the low cost, but what needs to be answered is how are the parts used in the production so cheap?  Again - I understand that they use inferior parts, but how is this even possible?  Is this a sign that we're paying through the skin for our technology?  If India can do it, couldn't we do it too?  I would love to see the true production costs for our technology.  Something just seems fishy to me.