Power Hungry Generation

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I have lots of memories of my folks telling me to stop leaving lights on and to “close the door, we’re not trying to air-condition the neighborhood.”  Following the oil embargo, President Jimmy Carter tried to send the nation on the path of energy conservation, and in some respects it worked.

Buoyed by Vice-President Al Gore’s messaging twenty years later, conservation has made it mainstream.  But just as green in the 70s was limited to energy conservation, it seems that these days, it may be limited to recycling. Interesting notice on a study on GenY perceptions of environmental messaging and electricity.

Feedback from participants also indicated that Gen Y’s are dismissive of the impact they can and do have on the environment and that, when electricity is restricted, it is not uncommon for Gen Ys to experience a degree of stress.

Given our increase in gadgets, maybe it is time to start doing some messaging on energy again.

911 Texting

Hillicon Valley reported that Verizon is developing a text to 911 feature.  Very cool.  Could be useful in situations where placing a voice call is impractical or dangerous.  Additionally, the article notes that:

It could be of particular use to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, who have been shown to be rapid adopters of smartphones for their text-messaging capabilities.

Great point.  It should roll out “during the early part of next year in select areas using its existing mobile network.”

News: People Are A Challenge

Just read a story at Slate by Daniel Wilson with the creepy heading of “Robot sex and marriage: Will society accept it?” The discussion of robot prostitution was interesting, but not too thought provoking. We’ve pretty much removed the human-ness of the other activities that we do relating to the physical passions.  Here in America, you can eat and drink yourself to a stupor for very little money, and do it in complete social isolation if you prefer.  Why not sex?  Temperance is not an American strong suit.

(more…)

It’s All In How You Look At It

Speculating about the next Apple product is a cottage industry that’s generally useful for nothing more than driving clicks and feeding the trolls. But today, Ben Kunz at BusinessWeek had a thoughtful piece on the much rumoured television from Apple. He doesn’t have any supply chain evidence, but this is the first analysis I’ve seen that suggests that makes any sense. Why would Apple get in the crowded, low margin, slow turnover, big TV game? Kunz suggests that it is a different game that they’d get into.

Apple will sell small screens in a unique format, likely with a pure glass bezel or, if the technology permits, an entirely transparent screen—and seek to fill your entire home with secondary television/video devices…We want more screens, and we want to do other stuff while watching, so why wouldn’t Apple sell pretty little panels to spread throughout our homes?

(more…)

On the Meaning of Magic

People who like to slag on Apple regularly complain about their use of the term “magical” to describe the iPad.  For instance:

I’ll tell you what is magical. Harry Potter, unicorns and sawing women in half are magical. Making a computer or a bloody Mac takes no magic at all, it takes silicon and factories, and workers, and sweat, and designers, and marketing people.

Seems to me that Apple doesn’t mean that kind of magic.  Rather, Apple is referencing Arthur C. Clarke’s widely known third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So, Apple is really making a claim about how advanced their tech is, not about its supernatural powers.  Actually, they probably meant it the way Gregory Benford restated it in Foundations End:

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

FWIW, it’s not such a jump to substitute “religion” for “magic”. . .

On Straw Men and Blogs

I’ve been engaged by Mathew Ingram at GigaOm recently. He’s had a couple of great pieces this past week. But he also wrote one I’m not so fond of. In this piece, he argues against Turkle and others that suggest that the technologies that we use have shaped our behaviors in ways that disconnect us from others (that’s more nuanced than he puts it, though).

What bothers me is not his opposition to something I tend to agree with. I work in the area of social ethics, so I get paid to disagree with people. No biggie. Rather, it’s the argumentation he uses. He does three things that bother me:

(more…)