Internet The need for technology (Was: Urban Guerilla)

[Urwumpe]

Face: The same applies for my work mobile phone. Nokia C1*, no cam, no thrills... and battery lasts for almost two weeks when used at normal rate (4-5 short phone calls per day) :lol:
* Very popular model, it seems, you can't go outside without hearing the standard ring tone and suddenly see many people searching their phone...and then it is also always a C1 and not a similar Nokia phone.

 

[Face]

Face: The same applies for my work mobile phone. Nokia C1*, no cam, no thrills... and battery lasts for almost two weeks when used at normal rate (4-5 short phone calls per day) :lol:
* Very popular model, it seems, you can't go outside without hearing the standard ring tone and suddenly see many people searching their phone...and then it is also always a C1 and not a similar Nokia phone.

Wow. I guess mine is even crappier than I thought nowadays, if C1 is so popular. It is a 1208.

 

[4throck]

Interesting discussion about tech and hype.

Think about this: this forum is a form of technological social networking. A very good and powerful one. And even though people here have expressed that they make little use of cell phones, tabs and all other hype gadgets, they are still on-line and participate on this forum. And communicating with people they don't know in person. So saying the you prefer personal communication is not true. You wouldn't be here if it was so.:lol:


Now, I'm pretty confident that the current tab/mobile "revolution" is all about business control.
Those devices are not free as your PC is. Those devices are controlled by their manufacturers, and you can only see/do/get what they let you.


I'd be VERY cautious about replacing crucial books/manuals by digital versions with limited licenses. The latest trend is that you don't buy software/content, you subscribe a monthly license. Look at Adobe and the future Creative Suite.
If you miss a payment, no more books or magazines. The same happens if the supplying company closes....
I personally don't see much future in this business model, but that's just me...
On the other hand, it leaves the PC market open to serious small business that can now venture into "classic" installable software business. As it is happening with indie game development...

 

[Urwumpe]

Now, I'm pretty confident that the current tab/mobile "revolution" is all about business control.

That is why the Mozilla OS project has so much support... it permits taking control away from Google or Apple... and to the companies in the middle. And a bit towards the customer, though I doubt that it will result in a really free market.

 

[Face]

And even though people here have expressed that they make little use of cell phones, tabs and all other hype gadgets, they are still on-line and participate on this forum. And communicating with people they don't know in person. So saying the you prefer personal communication is not true.

Well, expressing that one make little use of cell phones and the like, and saying that one prefers personal communication is a different pair of shoes. Actively deciding when to go online and where (at home/work on your desk) is maybe the thing that most people like me prefer over the current notion of being online all of the time everywhere.

In this light I have to admit that I outright hate people that demand me to keep my phone switched on for them to reach me everywhere, anytime, just because I own such a device. Typical statements: "Hey, switch on your damn phone already, what for do you think you have it?"
And then there are those friends/relatives that keep ranting about "That guy/gal calls me again! *sigh* Why don't they leave me alone!". Often I say something like "just switch it off", only to get a surprised stare in return. I mean, I know that I might be crazy, but isn't that... stupid? Ranting on the effects of being always on, but insisting on staying always on?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Often I say something like "just switch it off", only to get a surprised stare in return.

Isn't it amazing how people can/will vilify and justify their device within the same sentence?

I dig it, we're in a "connected" world. The is a short story by (I think) Ray Bradbury (or maybe Theodore Sturgeon), where a guy is arrested for destroying his "link" type device. When questioned he commented on how the other people on the train/bus/subway car (whatever it was), kept constantly updating their contacts about where they were on the route. It ended with him being institutionalized for anti-social behavior. It was part of a collection of stories, I may still have it, I'll look.

@4throck, I must disagree my friend. I do prefer personal communication. There is nuance, body language, facial expression and so on that helps to convey a message that isn't available in a text message (or forum) without a judicious use of emoticons or smileys. Even with those, some things just don't come across as intended due to language barriers or cultural differences.

Personally, I'd love an Orbiter Forum tweetup or a meet-n-greet over a pint or beverage of choice for our non-drinkers or non-legal age members (or our non-legal age-drinkers, not that I'd encourage that or anything, I don't (or do I)).

See what I mean? Five different people could read 5 different messages into that last comment, and then they could argue about it for weeks.

I've got a cell phone, it runs Windows mobile 5, I don't think it qualifies as a "smart" phone, but I have been known to hijack the projector via bluetooth when I took my public speaking class many years ago. In nearly 15 years of carrying one, I seriously doubt I've got more than 10 hours of talk time.

As for work, they offered me one and I declined. I got the same look the Face described. I told them I have no intention of wearing an electronic tether during my off time. My working hours are from 11 PM to 7 AM, if someone needs me and it's work related, they know where to find me. If I can't be reached by phone there is always the plant paging system.

 

[Ghostrider]

As I said before, technology is a tool. Tools are means. The more means you have at your disposal, the more options you have to achieve your goals. Flexibility is always better. If you don't want to be found, you can switch the thing off or filter the calls so that you'll be reached only by people you actually want to be reached by.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the stuff, but a stance like "I don't need it, therefore you don't and if you got it you've been brainwashed by marketdroids" is so full of fail it should be called "Fail-Cola, not with 25% more bubblehead".

As for people overusing it, it's their problem. I don't really understand the lady reading the newspaper while manipulating a tablet, one of the actions is highly redundant methinks.

 

[FADEC]

It's always interesting to watch people react whenever I mention that I don't have a cell phone, that I never had one, and that I don't need one. It even caused this thread to appear and grow.

I think the claim of cell phones = security mostly is a feeling or just another justification rather than a real fact. I've heard from people which work for the mountain rescue service for example, that people became giddier because of that delusive security feeling.

There can be a valid argument however: if I chop wood in the middle of nowhere and break my leg or something like that, nobody will find me and I can't call someone without a cell phone. But: I also can fall of the stairs or a car can hit me on the street in the middle of a large city and I can die or become paraplegic immediately while I have a cell phone in my jacket pocket. I even can die in my bed tonight...

There are other arguments like "I need a cell phone to call my kids". But is it a real need? I think it's a fallacy. When I was a kid nobody had a cell phone or I should say radio telephone back then, except businessmen, or plebs (i.e. people with those big, fake radio telephones in their leased cabrios :lol. Kids and parents without cell phones? How did we "survive" back then? Seems impossible these days. But yes, there really was a progressing, modern world before everyone had cell phones.

But regarding everybody else as foolish, naïve or "dependant on the eeeevul corporations" is not only absurd, it's laughable.

I don't think you're denying that most people are dependent on industries. Most people would be lost already without electricity. And a lot of people don't have a clue anymore how to properly process foods and cook.

And since you mentioned "evil corporations": certain dubious practices of the food and cloth industries for example are not crazy ideas but sad facts.

Maybe I'm just not immature enough to find this laughable.

flaunting your difference and ranting about how your way is "better" and how the rest of us are market zombies only makes me laugh.

My life is different to most others within my country (and other modern countries as well). "Better" is a subjective point of view and your interpretation.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 PM ----------

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the stuff,

Advertising can be quite manipulative. Especially to kids.

but a stance like "I don't need it, therefore you don't and if you got it you've been brainwashed by marketdroids"

As said before: that's your interpretation.

You're not brainwashed. But in fact you are certainly as dependent as almost anyone else is. Including myself.

 

[Urwumpe]

Advertising can be quite manipulative. Especially to kids.

Kids are not allowed to buy things. Parents are. And if you as parent buy every scam, you are really punished enough financially and by the health of your children.

 

[TMac3000]

There's been enough research and interviewing to demonstrate that constant use of smartphones for gaming in idle moments curtails your creativity. You don't get the downtime needed to deep think anything.

This is part of the dumbing down that's in progress in many tech-heavy societies. Creativity is less, "zombieism" is more.

This brings up the question: how far can technology go before we have problems? I'd say the answer is that how far it goes isn't the problem, but how fast. Technology doesn't just give us conveniences, in many cases it transforms society. Think of what happened when we went from the horse-and-buggy to the automobile. Such technology transformed Los Angles from a few a wooden buildings and a saloon, to the glittering metropolis that it is today. It has also made people more distant, less conscious of their fellow man.

I think that certain technology should be withheld by its inventors until we really understand the social consequences.

 

[PennyBlack]

I think that certain technology should be withheld by its inventors until we really understand the social consequences.

Social consequencies I think can only truely be realised by the practice and apllication of new technologies within it. Theorising how a new technology would alter or transform a society has it's limits. With todays advances in technological innovations, why wait for another competitor to monopolise an invention while you try to debate the pros and cons. Many inventions have been unleased unto the world because it won't be contained or by the very nature of our capitalist system, the money outwieghs the moral or ethical dilemas of it's use.

I saw a documentory once about the growing scale of invention, the advancement of technologies. I couldn't help but think how to discribe it other than "The Pandora Box effect" mixed with those little Russian dolls that unpack another doll from within. (I struggle for discriptive words, sorry)
Because of our nature and the system we reside under, I don't fear invention, only what is invented because of that combination.

 

[TMac3000]

Social consequencies I think can only truely be realised by the practice and apllication of new technologies within it. Theorising how a new technology would alter or transform a society has it's limits. With todays advances in technological innovations, why wait for another competitor to monopolise an invention while you try to debate the pros and cons. Many inventions have been unleased unto the world because it won't be contained or by the very nature of our capitalist system, the money outwieghs the moral or ethical dilemas of it's use.

I saw a documentory once about the growing scale of invention, the advancement of technologies. I couldn't help but think how to discribe it other than "The Pandora Box effect" mixed with those little Russian dolls that unpack another doll from within. (I struggle for discriptive words, sorry)
Because of our nature and the system we reside under, I don't fear invention, only what is invented because of that combination.

Ah, so the key is not control of the scientific community, but rather personal responsibility. Very good:thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Ah, so the key is not control of the scientific community, but rather personal responsibility. Very good:thumbup:

You get nothing good, when you tell scientists, what they should research... next you will tell them, what results they should get.

 

[Ghostrider]

You're not brainwashed. But in fact you are certainly as dependent as almost anyone else is. Including myself.

Of course I am. And you know what? I have this damn addiction since I was born that I cannot ever shake: I'm completely dependent on oxygen. Seriously, I tried breathing other stuff but it doesn't work. I don't know what I would do if I hadn't access to an oxygen supply. I know it's a terrible thing to say, but I think I may die without oxygen.

And now for something completely different... Advertising doesn't really work on me. They cannot sell me something I have no use for, and even if I need something I will shop around and find what answers my immediate and foreseaable needs. I had to learn this because I'm an only son and my father was often away because of work, so I was the one tasked with doing the shopping thing. Before I buy anything, I think at least thrice.
So now you know that if you ever see me ogling at Victoria's Secret's catalogue, I'm not thinking about buying lingerie.:lol:

I own a cellphone, and have owned one since about 1995, because I travel a lot and when you're travelling it's good to have the ability to make a call. You can't rely on public phones being available all the time. I've managed to hold on to an ancient Motorola Timeport for years because it fit my needs perfectly. I switched to a smartphone because it gave me more options and allowed me to work more efficiently while out and about. I got a data plan because running from a free wifi spot to another was becoming too much effort for the gain, and my time is valuable.

As for a car... Unfortunately I need one now so I'll have to get one. Unfortunately in my line of work public transportation doesn't quite cut it and I cannot always count on a colleague to drive me around.

Dependent? In any human society where division of labour exists, everyone is dependent. That's why modern survivalism, for instance, focuses on community survival over simply individual survival. Relying on others is not bad, artificially imposed reliance is another matter of course.

And relying on one particular tool is almost suicidal. As I stated, tools mean options. The more the merrier.

 

[Face]

And relying on one particular tool is almost suicidal. As I stated, tools mean options. The more the merrier.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a smartphone, everything looks like there's an app for that. :rofl:

 

[TMac3000]

So now you know that if you ever see me ogling at Victoria's Secret's catalogue, I'm not thinking about buying lingerie.

Me either--I'm probably worrying that some feminist is going to walk in and catch me:rofl:

 

[Ghostrider]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a smartphone, everything looks like there's an app for that. :rofl:

That's why I carry a Swiss Army Knife. :lol: