Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Robots Without a Cause 450

Posted by michael from the second-law-applies dept.
WG55 writes "Have you noticed that more and more technology is more ingenious than useful? Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian writes in his article Robots without a cause that much technology produced today will change our lives little, if at all. He writes, 'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robots Without a Cause More

Robots Without a Cause

Comments Filter:

  • Sculpted (Score:5, Funny)

    by frieked ( 187664 ) * on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:00PM (#6225092) Homepage Journal
    From the article: The Audi A8's sensor, though, is more than a security device. After fingerprint identification, the car's computer tunes the radio to your favourite stations, the mirrors swivel according to your established preferences, and the driver's seat sculpts itself to your bottom.

    Hmmmm, sculpted to my ass... Do they make a computer chair and/or couch potatoe model?

  • Those who can, do. Those who can't . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by palutke ( 58340 ) * on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:00PM (#6225095)
    . . . write articles complaining about how it is being done.

    The author cites a bunch of consumer-oriented gadgets as contemporary 'inventions' but seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that _somebody_ has to pay for the development of these things. I may not want to buy a 3G phone, but I want a wind-up radio even less. If it isn't likely to sell, who will pay for development?

    It is becoming more and more difficult to produce a new techology in your garage without serious funding. Many amateur (read: non-corporate funded) inventors start out to 'scratch an itch' because a product to do what they want isn't available. I'm spoiled enough that I don't spend much time contemplating how to grow food more effectively (or how to more efficiently meet my other basic needs), so I'm not likely to produce the next big invention that will make Mr. Jeffries happy.

    • Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The_K4 ( 627653 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:10PM (#6225201)
      Um....if you live in hurricane/tornado/blizzard prone areas your view on that "wind-up radio" might change. Their IS a market for that product and people will pay for it (and it's development/improvement). Just because 1 person doesn't like/see a use for that product doesn't mean it isn't there. This article misses the point that these "creature comforts" may not make people "happy" or "fufilled" but they make getting my ass outa bed in the morning that much easier. Once i've had my coffee from my auto-timered pot and a shower (using hot water from a water heater with a timer that's a hugh energy saver) i'll be a lot more prepared to go insearch of happiness/fufillment/my next caffine hit.

    • Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:14PM (#6225248) Homepage Journal
      The author seems not to have much perspective as to how different people might view particular gadgets. A robotic vaccuum cleaner sounds great to me, since I've got 3 kids under the age of 16 months and hence a titanic workload just to keep the house under control.

      The question for all of these gadgets is whether or not enough people find them useful and affordable to make the R&D investment worthwhile. This is inherently a risky proposition, so there will tremendous hits (DVD) and flops (Iridium)...

    • Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:15PM (#6225262) Homepage Journal
      His argument isn't abut the usefulness of research, or the problem of its funding. His article isnt about the free market mythos.

      It's about a cultural obsession with temporary diversion and amusement in novelty.

      Shockingly, he supposes that lasting value in life might come from knowing oneself better, and that real sources of happiness are pusued with fewer contemplative distractions.

      • The Walden Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tony ( 765 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:54PM (#6225644) Journal
        Shockingly, he supposes that lasting value in life might come from knowing oneself better, and that real sources of happiness are pusued with fewer contemplative distractions.

        Not to sound like a nihilistic hedonist, but... there is no lasting value in life.

        In due time, we will all die.

        The only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life; our only real duty in life is to increase the amount of joy experienced by others.

        The path to death may be joyous or somber or angry; but it cannot be avoided. Every step you take is one step closer to the ultimate demise.

        Knowlege is only valuable inasmuch as it contributes to your joy, and the joy of those whom you affect. I enjoy intellectual conversation, and so I value those who seek knowlege.

        But are the real sources of happiness pursued with fewer contemplative distractions? For some, yes. For others, no. Me, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my inner complexity requires constant contemplation. I think I have myself figured out fairly well. Occassionaly, I reconsider who I truly am; but for the most part, I merely exist, and enjoy that existence.

        But, YMMV, of course. But to assume your purpose in life is another's purpose is the worst kind of self-important drivel in existence.

        • Re:The Walden Fallacy (Score:5, Funny)

          by dave_mcmillen ( 250780 ) * on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:45PM (#6226117)
          Not to sound like a nihilistic hedonist, but... there is no lasting value in life. In due time, we will all die. The only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life; our only real duty in life is to increase the amount of joy experienced by others.

          Wow, what would you have written if you did want to sound like a nihilistic hedonist?
    • The author cites a bunch of consumer-oriented gadgets as contemporary 'inventions' but seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that _somebody_ has to pay for the development of these things.

      He's victim to a common fallacy -- that there's a finite amount of stuff in the world and one can only have TV-glasses at the expense of one's neighbor going without shoes. It's unimaginable to him that if we "discard our possessions and live more simply", the people who make and sell drink-pouring robots will be go

    • One of the sadest things to me is that corporations will finance projects they believe will have the best return on investment. The little gadgets and features that have been added to the Audi may not change the world, but Audi is banking on those features bringing in more revenue. Very few corporations with the financial backing to endorse inventions that "could" change the way we do things in the world are willing to take the risk that such an expenditure requires. Sure, maybe the world would be better

    • Don't knock the wind-up radio (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hittite Creosote ( 535397 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:20PM (#6225315)
      but I want a wind-up radio even less. If it isn't likely to sell, who will pay for development?

      ~The wind up radio? Trevor Bayliss developed it at his own cost, and Christopher Staines and South African entrepreneur Rory Stear put up the finance to make production a reality. Previously, people had to spend more on batteries than they did on the radio. Batteries are more expensive and less reliable in rural Africa than they are in the rich parts of the world.

      Are they any use? Read this [freeplayfoundation.org] and make your mind up. But I'd say they're a damn sight more useful to many more people than a 3G phone.

    • I love this bit! Hilarious!

      "The proper answer, surely, is that while interplanetary exploration is conceivably a noble human aspiration, needing a robot to pour your pop is the hallmark of the idle ponce."

  • You never know when the next big thing will come (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:01PM (#6225098)
    If you told someone in the 60's that the government was working on a giant computer network, would many have cared? Probably not. Heck, computers didn't seem to have much purpose to most people, then, either. They were something for the military, big business and sci-fi. But now, it's an essential part of many people's homes. It just takes time.

    • Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:12PM (#6225231) Journal

      I've always wondered what George Boole's fellow mathematicians must have thought about him speding so much time developing an algebra based on only two numbers. And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

      While I look at a lot of modern technology as useless yuppie crap, there's something to be said about the relentless pursuit of scientific and technological advancement.

      GMD

      • Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 )
        You confuse meaningful, basic-research with mere productization, or development engineering.

        You can't put the work of Boole and Fourier or even Graham-Bell and Tesla on par with mating a CCD to a PDA - or the Segway.

        • I'm not "confusing" them (Score:4, Insightful)

          by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:40PM (#6225517) Journal

          You confuse meaningful, basic-research with mere productization, or development engineering.

          My whole point was that the development of Boolean algebra or Fourier series wasn't "meaningful" at the time. It was just a curiosity. As far as the distinction between "basic" research and "development engineering", I'm not sure why you feel that's important. Many important problems get solved as special cases before some bright individual realizes that there is a more fundamental basic principle at work. A silly little beeping trinket may require the engineers to solve some new, very specialized problem. You never know if the lessons learned by solving that problem might carry over and provide insight or be applicable to another, not nearly so trivial technology.

          I am sad that there isn't enough money going towards basic research. But there's no use crying about it. I knew a mathematican who worked at Honeywell. He was supposed to be solving a specific control problem but would often divert his energy towards playing with more general, but still related problems. When I asked him how he could get away with doing that, his response was "Well, my bosses have to put up with a little of that if they want me to work for them." Obviously, that was meant as a joke but I think his bosses probably realized that there is a healthy cross-fertilization between working on very applied problems and taking a step back and thinking about the bigger picture. It is my belief that effort expended on developing these yuppie trinkets can find application in other, more important areas.

          GMD

      • Re:Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mav[LAG] ( 31387 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:57PM (#6225677)
        And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

        Funnily enough it actually generated quite a bit of controversy. Joesph Louis Lagrange happened to be on the review council and refused to believe that adding sinusoids could produce signals with corners. It was only after Lagrange died some 15 years later that Fourier could get his paper published.

      • Re:Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by zwalters ( 532390 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:30PM (#6225981)
        And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

        Actually, Fourier's proof was extremely controversial at the time, and has arguably had a larger impact on the subsequent development of mathematics than anything else in the 19th century not invented by Gauss.

        Consider a square wave. It's a discontinuous function that by Fourier's theorem can be represented as an infinite series of continuous functions -- and yet it's trivial to show that any sum of continuous functions must itself be continuous. So which is it -- continuous or discontinuous?

        The problem in this specific instance results from a failure to distinguish between pointwise convergence (looks at local behavior -- whether two functions give the same answer at the same point) and functional convergence (loosely, that the functions behave the same over the entire range being considered). But the real problem was that there was enough slop in 19th century definitions and standards of proof that it was possible to "prove" a theorem true or false using equally valid arguments.

        There were other problems cropping up at the same time, of course, but the problems of Fourier analysis were a major if not the major cause of the movement for rigor that redefined math in the 20th century.

        Connecting all this to things the average Slashdotter will have heard of, the famous Hilbert program was a prominent part of the movement towards rigor -- a series of important questions that had to be answered if rigor were to be possible. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Turing machine were both answers to Hilbert problems.

    • Re:You never know when the next big thing will com (Score:4, Funny)

      by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:45PM (#6226118) Homepage
      Well, this is the Guardian, which means itâ(TM)s your average cultural snob, elitist leftie whinging and whining about how modern life is sooooooooooo bad because we, the unwashed, unsophisticated masses spend too much time with our crass, petty little toys and not enough time brooding over the existential meaning of âoewhat it all means.â

      Translation: theyâ(TM)re a bunch of fucking twats.

      Let Stuart Jeffries climb a pole and ponder his bloody navel, Iâ(TM)ve got cars to steal in GTA:VC.

  • This guy is a tool (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's sad, really. Putting engineering into application is evil, I say!

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gumpish ( 682245 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:02PM (#6225108) Journal
    Thanks to the newest wonders of technology we can get robots to do our vacuuming, transmit pictures on our mobile phones and unlock our cars (and adjust their seats) merely by touching them. In the face of this wizardry, Stuart Jeffries has only one question: why?

    Because we can.

  • Perfect measure... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 )
    Forget GDP per capita, I think weâ(TM)ve found a new measure for quality of living! In all seriousness, I think the references to rich western culture bring up an interesting point: thereâ(TM)s no measure of a countryâ(TM)s wealth and the contentedness of its people in their lives like the amount of money they spend on amusements and distractions. The consumer crap index, made up of useless innovations, movie and sport industry revenues, and profits of haute-fashion shops for pre-teens.

  • I'll start living more simply right now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy AT stogners DOT org> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:05PM (#6225145) Homepage
    By reading only the technophilic-sounding articles which are handwritten and hand delivered to me (that limits me to what, the Unabomber?), and ignoring anything which complains about the free exploration of technology but which was produced with a word processor and uses a global electronic network for distribution.

  • Hard to predict (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pen ( 7191 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:05PM (#6225148)
    It's hard to predict what technology will change peoples' lives until after the fact.

    • Re:Hard to predict (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mr Z ( 6791 )

      But it's easy to predict that wallpaper and ring tones for your telephone are highly unlikely to effect that change. That seems to be the sort of "innovation" that Stuart Jeffries is railing against.

      --Joe

      [P.S. Yes, 'effect,' not 'affect,' as in 'bring about.']

  • This may be true for some, but it's not for me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beee ( 98582 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:05PM (#6225150) Homepage
    Just because the author seems to believe all robots fall under the classification of useless gadgets doesn't mean the rest of us see them that way. This articles strikes of the typical attitude that non-technically-inclined people get when they see us geeks fiddling with robots.

    The truth is, with the generation of people in their late teens and twenties, robots will be not only commonplace, but expected. We've grown up with the first wave of robot companions (Furby!) and it will be far from out of the ordinary for us to expect our vaccuuming to be done by AI.

    Not everyone is ignorant enough to excuse robots as mere toys, their application will grow infinitely in the coming years and they will be all the more transparent in our day-to-day lives. Right now we're afflicted with a overflow of gimmick bots that give people the impression all they're only good for entertainment, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Just wait 10 years and see.

    • Hear, hear. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:11PM (#6225825) Journal
      Not to put too fine a point on it, but the author can frankly go fsck himself.

      Plenty of similar arguments are made about the "worthlessness" of space travel, but what people often tend to ignore is the exponential effect of pure scientific research on useful technology development, not to mention the technological spinoffs from space technology research.

      "Contemplate our shame," indeed. He's the one who should be ashamed of himself.
    • Agreed. Do you ever think about the intelligence which controls the emissions in your car, turns on your Mr Coffee in the morning and keeps the fillament from overheating? Do you ever think about the complex switching system that brought these words from my copy of Opera to your eyeballs, or the network of computers and fuzzy systems that put your letter to the gas company on the right truck?

      Of course you didn't. Because that's where the real world changing technology is: under the hood, unnoticable, seamless.

      You might have noticed, if each of these intelligent systems had given you sass and proclaimed its greatness and autonomy a la the Jetson's world this article's author thinks he lives in. Not everything technological is a shiny new DVD player with a sticker listing its best features on it. And while most gadgetry isn't very satisfying, technology is no more devoid of artful interaction then a poorly utilized paint brush.

      My digital camera was a gadget up until I took my first real high contrast shot and felt the urge to print it out. Now it's a tool. Now it's a satisfying part of my personality. And yeah, there are meager innovations in digital photography, and yeah maybe each one is crap. But as long as there are people willing to use these things as tools, and not as simple, flash inna pan gadgets, then all the innovation is socially viable. Ever see Picasso's light pen drawings?

      And as for the A8: Have you ever been to the Met, seen the ornate sedan chairs? Nobody ever asks, "what good is this carved wood scrolling, this delicate laced cushion? it doesn't enhance our lives." Technology has always been a form of adornment. My car has a feature that dims the lights instead of turning them off. That's part of its charm -- and since I chose to bust my ass to buy the fool thing, it's a part of my life, same as the colour of my socks, my taste in music, and my thoughts on god and the universe. When new friends get in my car and the lights dim, they say "cool." It's trivial, even stupid. But it's part of our shared experience and therefore important.
  • That's what I thought too before I bought my TiVo with DirecTV service!
  • The US population is gaining weight at an alarming rate, with over half the population over their ideal weight.

    <sarcasm>Surely stuff like this couldn't be the cause, could it?</sarcasm>

    • Surely stuff like this couldn't be the cause, could it?

      Well, if you really think that vacuuming and adjusting your car seats gives you lots of exercise, I supose so. On the other hand, I tend to think that leaving these tasks to robots and going to the gym instead might be more effective...

    • It is happening in more than just the US. Half the people in Europe are above the median weight as well.

  • Maybe, but it depends on how you look at it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GotSpider ( 682283 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:09PM (#6225183) Homepage Journal
    I think that the idea of robots is useful, even with what we have today. There have been robots that can mow the lawn for you, that can vacuum for you, and things along that line.

    Things like Botball (kipr.org [botball.org]) really help to stimulate the idea of thinking about autonomous systems, and these are high school and sometimes middle school kids working on these projects. Sure, the contests that they run are really just getting the robots to move balls into cages and such, but the underlying point is a big deal. The future for robotics lies in autonomy, and it is a big problem.

    It's rather difficult to get a system robust enough to last in an enviornment that you can only protect for as much as you predict (unless you plan on being able to "teach" the robot).

    Maybe right now it seems like everything is just "ingenious", but there are some gems among it, and you just need to be a little more patient, the practical applications are the only ones that stick around in the end. Wait another 10 years, then see where we are.

  • "The Emperor's Nightingale..." (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:09PM (#6225189) Homepage
    ...by Hans Christian Andersen, and all the ingenious "automata" of the nineteenth century, show, at least, that there is nothing new about the love of gadgetry for the sake of gadgetry.

    It's probably a form of idolatry... that's a sin we're not very conscious of these days...

  • Really. (Score:5, Informative)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:09PM (#6225191) Homepage
    Only after widespread network and Internet adoption did personal computers realize the productivity gains that had been promised for three decades.

    This question should have been answered fifteen years ago when the question "when will PCs fulfill there promise" was first asked. No one answered it then and I really doubt anyone will provide an insightful or informative answer now.

    J. Bradford DeLong has an excellent article in the current issue of Wired discussing this very topic.

    I used to wonder why Wired didn't have a "Comment on This Article" link after their postings. Then I realized that Slashdot provides that service for them.

    I belive the answer is this: people who are pushing the boundaries pursue what is interesting to themselves. Many of these interests will be obscure and useful to only a few; that's human nature. But occasionally someone will come up with a brilliancy that affects all of humanity profoundly.

    Electric and steam powered engines did that for the Industrial Revolution. The Internet and networking did that for the Personal Computing Revolution. What ever the next revolution is it will come faster and harder than any revolution in the past.

  • Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot&neil,fraser,name> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:10PM (#6225194) Homepage
    The author fails to look at history. "Pointless" gadgets aren't a new thing. A hundred years ago something called "indoor plumbing" was a pointless gadget. It saved one from going to all the effort of opening a window and yelling "gardez loo". But with the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that indoor plumbing was kind of a cool idea.

    Every age has new ideas; some of which will last, and some which won't. The cutting edge ones invariably look pointless at the time.

    • Or, to put it another way, no one really knows what invention will "change the world" (as the article author puts it) until the world actually changes. The telephone and powered flight, for instance, were also just "pointless gadgets" when they were first invented. It wasn't until much later than their importance became clear.

      Labor-saving devices in particular, the sort the article author derides most, are what give us the free time to read his articles about the uselessness of those devices. Which I

    • Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) * <slashdot AT stefanco DOT com> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:29PM (#6225406) Homepage Journal
      A hundred years ago something called "indoor plumbing" was a pointless gadget.

      From what I know, indoor plumbing was a pretty pointful gadget 100 years ago. Most people wanted it, the benefits were obvious (clean, it's indoors, didn't need to empty the outhouse, you can wash your hands in cleaner water and cut down on disease) but alot of people couldn't afford the installation costs.

      I know that in San Francisco 100 years ago, many, many people were installing indoor plumbing.

    • Re:Perspective (Score:4, Informative)

      by retro128 ( 318602 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:40PM (#6225511)
      Exactly. Case in point, from the article:

      The wheel, powered flight, the telephone - these were important developments about which one could get excited.

      All of these things were considered novelties at one point. The Army at one time scoffed [kdhnews.com]at the airplane. The car was a toy for the rich, as were telephones (ever think about who got the first telephone? Who to call, who to call...)

      The same can be said of, oh, the fax machine, air conditioning, television, cell phones, and, dare I say it - the personal computer. The man who wrote the article does not understand that "frivolous" inventions can lead to great ones with huge and widespread practical applications.

  • Too many gadgets crowding out my ''shame'' (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:10PM (#6225199) Homepage Journal
    Well, maybe he's right. But I must say that as far as problems go, this is a pretty good one to have.

    (By the way, when electricity was first discovered, it was mostly used to amuse people by shocking them.)

  • Things ARE getting a little scary... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chrisbro ( 207935 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:10PM (#6225203)
    I think we may be headed towards a self-imposed matrix. I forget what game it is, maybe MOO2, that had virtual reality simulators for your citizens. Think Minority Report too, I think it was, where you can act out your every fantasy for a fee. What if technology like that becomes commonplace, where your every whim can be created and seem absolutely real? What kind of person would you be then? I can already see a kind of wilting away of life through my father, who just comes home from work and plays Everquest until it's time to go to bed. It truly is like he's leading a completely different life that he would much rather pay attention to than the real thing.

    I'm not Luddite by any means; I fully welcome every new technology that comes around. But I wonder if our descendants will merely plug themselves into a fantasy world that for all purposes, is real...and what kind of person would be able to resist it and continue advancement in the real world.

    But maybe I'm just ranting :)
    • But what about people who are truly unhappy? The geek who gets picked on all day in school, and feels isolated and alone, with no one like him to talk to? The guy whose job well and truly sucks, and who wants to do something else at night? The person who has no friends, no one to hang around with outside of work, and very little to make him happy? What about these people? A good, immersive online existence can literally SAVE them. It gives them a virtual place where they can actually be *happy*, and get awa
    • I think you're fucking paranoid. Dude, do you know how much TIME it will take to create a perfect world? The amount of human interaction it will require to get a "feel" for everything? Right now, with great tools, a game like Unreal Tournament takes 5 years to create. Can you imagine the time it will take to build a reliable, interesting, intuitive, varied life simulator? Can you imagine the expense?

      Science Fiction's just fiction, kid. In the real world, we've got a free market economy, no clean cut
  • He who dies with the most toys wins.

  • Natural selection (Score:5, Funny)

    by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:12PM (#6225222)
    Of course we keep building more gadgets and robotic doodads, its just the natural order of things.

    Think about it, how are the robots going to rise up and kill their human masters if we don't make enough of them?

    Frankly I'm still waiting on those flying cars and maybe a robot housekeeper like on the "Jetsons".

  • Depends on What You Want To Do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by weston ( 16146 ) <<westonsd> <at> <canncentral.org>> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:12PM (#6225230) Homepage
    I agree that there's a large variety of consumer gadgets that are largely useless. I bought a 97 Geo Prizm for my last car only because my 85 Nissan Sentra gave out. I don't need a whole lot over a vehicle that works, has a radio and A/C.

    But seriously, when it comes to health care or even stuff more trivial like music production, bring on the tech. Yes, sometimes you can do great things with a stethoscope and/or and acoustic guitar, and sometimes I'm content with that. But other times, it's a tool that enables you to do cool things you never could have w/o it. I'm all for Sonograms and Synthesizers. I'm healthier and happier because of both....
    • I agree. I have certain things that I push for (where the current tech simply doesn't suffice) and others where I am quite happy. I drive a 75 vette and a 92 Jeep because they do just fine. I have an old camcorder because it works great. On the other hand, my PDA still does not quite measure up, and I could really use a better designed work laptop. I also am a big believer that science is rarely worthless. Just because something is worthless now, doesn't mean it will be worthless soon. Switches were prett

  • Dated Philosophy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Boxcarwilli ( 169764 )
    'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'

    Hmmmm, a society that is based on spending $ on crap they dont need is setting itself up for disaster........one should learn to be content as possessions bring only "short term" happiness.

    Who's dated philosophy? Buddha.

  • Robots Without a Cause (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YomikoReadman ( 678084 ) <`jasonathelen' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:14PM (#6225246) Journal
    Having read thru the article, I think that this individual wanted nothing more than to Rant on for a couple of pages about how all of the current group of top notch inventors do nothing but make devices to make technology a little bit more personalized. Insofar as the Rant on 3G phones go, they only really take notice of sales of the devices in the UK, which has nothing to do with their sales in other places where the phones were received extremely well, like japan and some places in Central Europe, like Germany. In short, this seems to me like nothing more than a rant against extravagance in technology due to the fact that the author thinks that the time would be better spent trying to improve the life of the impovershed.
  • I completely agree. There are more and more gadgets out there, and more of them do nothing to enhance lifestyle. Every time I hear someone say "I can't live without x", I'm thinking, shit, that's sad. Personally, I live by the Tyler Durden lifestyle. I only have what I need. My life is full enough without extra shit. My life is whittled down to the basics, so I only concentrate on what's important. Gadgets are just used to fill voids in empty lives.

    • 100% Fun (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tony ( 765 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:30PM (#6225412) Journal
      My life is whittled down to the basics, so I only concentrate on what's important. Gadgets are just used to fill voids in empty lives.

      And what is a 'full' life, pray tell?

      Seriously, what do the self-righteously self-deprived do with their copious free time?

      My life is filled with useless shit, and you know what? I love it! I am *extremely* content with all my CDs of music (more and more coming from independent labels, as that's where the interesting stuff is), my shelves and shelves of escapist SF, my Tivo full of Farscape re-runs (damn you, sci-fi, for cancelling this great show!), my office full of computer-geek stuff.

      Once I lived the spartan life, and I thought great thoughts, and I wrote great stories. I was published once in a while, but eventually the rejection slips became more frequent, and more magazines went belly-up.

      And what did I realize? I'm gonna die, and everything I know is going to die with me. So I spend time with friends when I can, and have fun at all times.

      And I love the little shit that pervades my life.

  • Best Purchase Ever ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <[be] [at] [eclec.tk]> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:15PM (#6225261) Homepage Journal
    Want to keep me entertained? Then let me use the new technology of a roto-tiller and let me purchase plants and plant food.

    I recently made a $60 investment in a tiller garden utensils and plants (onions, peppers, tomatoes, mellos, and corn) and planted them a new garden in my back yard.

    Granted gardening is far from new technology, but a tiller that weighs no more than 20 pounds and can still cut through 8 inches of earth? That's a pretty good feat of technology. I really enjoy the fact that what used to take an entire weekend now only takes me 25 minutes.

    While the technology may not have a huge impact on our lives it does bring about more time for leisure. Some of us spend 9 hours a day at work, come home and clean the house (because we couldn't before work), make dinner, and then notice we have maybe 2 hours tops of free time before we have to get to bed and do it all again the next day.

    Technology has made it easier for us to be able to actually relax and release stress from us. To not have to worry about the lawn because you placed a chemical that causes it to grow stronger and less fast or to be able to not have to worry about the house because a new weatherproof paint won't fade peel or chip. It's these "simple" things that we may not notice, but we also don't notice the impact they have on us. It can take an entire weekend to plant a garden, take care of a lawn, or paint a house.

    It's technology that makes it possible for us to have more time to enjoy life.

    • tiller that weighs no more than 20 pounds and can still cut through 8 inches of earth?

      You clearly don't live in Georgia... where a 100 lb tiller can't cut through 8 inches of "earth" (actually red clay, but that's what we have for soil around here).

      Point taken and agreed with though. The author of the article would rather act like the disenfranchised though, because it's "cool".
      • No ... I live in illinois ... nice rich dark soil that retains water pretty well. But this tiller I'm sure could have taking a good lick at the clay. I have hear reports that the clay is excellent for retaining water and mixing it with a loose soil makes it perfect for plants with good root systems.

        Completely off topic I know, but the "technology" for this tiller was a killer tilling blades it had. Basically it's a metal that doesn't dull easily (hell if I remember what metal) and holds an edge even be

    • Yes technology can, in theory, give us more free time. It's to bad that most employers think technology gives you the ability to work more hours and still get things done at home :(
  • Did anyone else think it was strange that after a few pages complaining about how terrible these inventions are, you get 3 pages of information on how much they all cost?

    Twostep

  • Insufferable, upper class twit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:17PM (#6225280) Journal
    But when a game becomes more satisfying than your job, maybe you should think of getting a new career rather than immersing yourself in ever more sophisticated games software.
    Talk about your insufferable, upper class twit. This is a few steps below "let them eat cake" on the hate-o-meter, but not all that many, as it comes from the same place. I don't love my job. Some aspects of it are satisfying, even fun. But then there are the days that stretch before me like the Sahara Desert and I just wait for the clock to get to 5:00 PM. I don't have the luxury of having a new career. I have a job that I tolerate and that pays me a lot better than most of my previous jobs. I feel profoundly lucky to be making a decent, middle class income. However, I'm not Lord Salisbury, I'm not doing my job as a dilletante. This was the best job I could find in my area with my education.

    Get a new career? Oh yes, everyone should do that. I'm sure that garbage men are in it because they love the excitement of garbage, and not because it is the way they afford food and a roof over their heads. I'm sure that all the janitors in the world feel the same about sanitation. Why doesn't everyone just work doing what they love? I'm sure the world would run swimmingly.

    If someone wants to get home from a hard day of work (ever notice how they don't call it happy-fun-time?) and wants to play a game of Splinter Cell why is it the business of some over paid, stuck up, hack who probably wonders why I don't just jet off to Singapore whenever I feel bored?

  • Oh no! People are enjoying luxuries! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nindalf ( 526257 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:18PM (#6225295)
    ...and they're not even the same luxuries I want! Don't they know that there are people starving, and dying of diseases?

    This kind of bootless diatribe is as old as language. Expect part 2, "People Were Better When I Was Young," next week.

  • Broader view (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:20PM (#6225314) Homepage Journal
    The author is taking a broader view (a "humanist" view, if you will) of the current state of affairs. To quote him,
    This all sounds great fun, but only in a society where all our basic needs are met could we be so pleasurably diverted by gadgets. It's not only fun to be excited by the latest gadget, it gives us the feeling too that we're part of the forward flow of life. It also gives us something easy to talk about: we make connections with people by discussing what our gadgets can do, even by laughing at our own silliness.

    He has a point. Look back at the inventors of the really useful devices (like the steam engine, the airplane, electricity, lightbulb, etc.), and see how many of these were invented in the "won't it be cool to do this!" spirit, and how many were in the "if I invent this, it will change the future!" spirit.

    It could be that today, thanks to the ubiquitous media, the "gadget" inventions are getting a lot more coverage than the "earth-shattering" inventions. In the old days, these "gadget" inventions probably never made it out of the inventor's shack.

    • Re:Broader view (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:42PM (#6226089) Journal
      Hmm.... Did you ever watch the BBC TV series Connections? If not you are in for a treat and they probably have it at your local library. Well, when I was a kid, my greatest joy was to stay up late and watch Connections on my local PBS station.

      Why am I bringing up Connections? Well, because Connections would trace the connections between various inventions that it would seem had no relation to each other. Many of the inventions the show would showcase as part of the chain would seem frivolous or irrelevent, but finally they would all link up to showcase the major invention of the show (which would be something like the automobile or the satellite dish).

      Heh, lately most of the justifications for a space program are based on the idea that innovations that came from the space program led to improvements in medicine, construction or other fields. (Note: if you can't sell people on exploring a new frontier and helping humanity break its earthly bounds, explaining how we wouldn't have Tang is not going to sell them)

  • Have you noticed that more and more technology is more ingenious than useful?

    We're reading Slashdot. How could we not notice?

  • Very one-sided (Score:3, Interesting)

    by d3faultus3r ( 668799 ) <willp.earthlink@net> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:23PM (#6225343) Homepage Journal
    He completely ignores the fact that incredible things have been accomplished in this age of gadgets he deems pointless. Does he really think the most inovative thing in this modern era is a wind up radio? What about genetic engineering, hybrid cars, nuclear fusion, nanotechnology, etc...? The scary part is, there must be a lot of people like him for this drivel to be published.

  • They broke the mold for new technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by daves ( 23318 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:25PM (#6225359) Journal
    All new technology is first monetized in the sex industry. Sony just messed up in coming out with a toy dog first.
  • Go contemplate your own shame while I rent some DVDs and ignore you.

  • cry cry cry (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FroMan ( 111520 )
    What a whiner.

    I made it through maybe half the article and get bored with it. Maybe a robot to read his articles would be something he'd approve of.

    We pretty much have our bases covered with things that we need. There are not food shortages in the civilized nations of the world., we are able to provide for everyone on the planet with leftovers on top of that (minus political influences). We have the basic technology to live anywhere on the planet that is inhabitable and many places inhabitable. There
  • The steamless steam shovel was the best invention, by far. The inginuity to create that machine marveled my generation.

    Ahh, the good old days...

    Gasp! Get back to work on the gardening on the courtyard dias before I whip you more! Between you, the French, and Charlotte Wren, I know not which one will befall our great civilization.

    • The Onion, sort of
  • it has been my experience that it is impossible to get a robot to do the simplest things. navigation among clutter, picking up an object, etc. are all research topics. people usually get results in very narrowly defined environments.

    periodically when i hear about people at places like the MIT media lab making robots have feelings, it makes me quite annoyed, since it is such a ridiculous topic. hard robotics problems get ignored, and the media doesn't ever write stories about the limitations of robots, wh
  • The problem is capitalism and its current crisis of abundance. People don't get paid unless they work. The essentials people really need can be produced with a fraction of the work force - maybe 20%. The rest build or service extravagant trickets. Non-renewable resources are wasted to provide diversions so that people can be employed so that they can buy mostly trinkets. Meanwhile people starve because they are in the third world and not participants in the trinket economy. No stopping it. This all has a mo

    • Re:Read Marx (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheSync ( 5291 )
      The challenge of socialism is motivating people to work to create the essentials, and then to give them away to others. Outside of family or tight tribal bounds, it seems to not be generally a human behaviour.

      While there is quite a bit of non-earned wealth transfer in the Western democracies through tax policies, socialized health & education, and retirement Ponzi schemes, the only governments that have been successful in breaking the basic human nature of greed and desire for personal property have h

  • I was going to reply earlier... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mysticalfruit ( 533341 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:34PM (#6225446) Homepage Journal
    But I tripped on my Roomba and fell on my battlebot...

  • Article is spot on. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by roryh ( 141204 )
    When is luxury not luxury? When it's available 24x7, at every mall and shopping centre, in every town, and every state. Then that's just plain decadence, endemic to an entire country. Technology is a tool like any other, creating wonderful things, but also some socially desructive, needless things, ususally produced at the expense of some Third World country. Look at the 5000 children dying each month of Malaria, and tell me you need an automatic hoover.

    Sometimes I feel ashamed to be in the country I am.
    • Yes, but 5000 children don't die because you do or do not have an electric hoover- they die because of a natural disease, that technology can at best control, and at worst can do nothing about (the best drugs are beginning not to work).

      It's a pity that those children probably can't improve their chances with the best technology to fight Malaria, but that's basically an economic problem- and one that is probably improved by 3rd world workers working for foreign capital (every dollar they bring in, probably

  • He writes, 'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'

    Huh? What? That really came out of left field. I don't see how I'm supposed to feel shame if I'm bored, or rich. Perhaps the author can point me in the direction of some of these shamed millionaires so I can help relieve them of their problem.

  • Invention an innovation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Spyder ( 15137 )
    I have a Fisher Space Pen, which I love. The Space Pen was created to solve the proble of how to allow astronuts to write in a zero G enviorment. It uses and pressurized cartrige and an ink with and intergrated adhesive. The Russians faced with the smae problem used pencils.

    The innovations of the Spac Pen contributed to new uses in comercail pens, and therefore contributed to the technology base.

    If necessity is the mother of inventionm, then cleverness is it's father. The fantasical examples of '50s "

  • On "time-saving" devices. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyler Durden ( 136036 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:54PM (#6225642)
    I've said something similar to this before, but when I think of where society is heading, I think this selection [stephenchao.com] from the Tao of Pooh is an important thing to consider.

    In case the site gets /.ed into oblivion, the most relevant piece goes like this...

    Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have LOTS OF TIME. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save you time so you won't have to work so hard.

    Does anyone else feel like this? How much of the time do we spend stressing out on work-related pressure is born of necessity and how much is just for gaining status? Or better yet, how much of it is to feed an economic machine that depends on convincing us that killing ourselves to get useless stuff is worth more than the piece of mind we could achieve without actively pursuing said stuff in the first place. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who notices there is a problem here yet I have to suffer under a lot of needless pressure because of others who demand everything "right now" without a thought of why. It wouldn't surprise me if the medical advances made possible by the current economic system are outnumbered by the health problems it caused due to work-related stress. Fuck, I'd rather die 10 years earlier than I would normally if it means that I get to relax and enjoy myself some while I was alive.

  • TIVO CHANGED MY LIFE! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:22PM (#6225918) Journal
    But seriously, can't these little ideologues stop projecting their miseries, mental issues, genital shortcomings, or whatever is causing them neurochemical dyspepsia upon everyone else?

    They guy has caught the basic truth that there's a lot of solutions looking for problems out there in the tech world, but so what? My eight year old nephew has figured that one out. Is it wrong to innovate for the sake of innovation? Does every thought need a definable purpose that serves THE PEOPLE[tm]? A lot of useful and life saving technologies grew out of idle tinkering in a lab somewhere.

    Enough with the technoangst already, and the bemoaning of our oh-so-hideous-so-empty-argh-so-very-depressinbgly- HUMAN Western culture. Honestly, this guy sounds like any disillusioned tech head I know when they aren't getting laid enough.

  • My cellphone...my terrorism cash-in! (Score:3)

    by Zhe Mappel ( 607548 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @03:35PM (#6226027)
    Dixon proceeds to deliver a eulogy to the 3G phone's impact on our lives. "Let's say there's a big terrorist bomb in London and say there are 500,000 video phones there and it's well known that CNN, Sky and the BBC pay for video clips, and you're just walking past. Within one second you can press record and the send button to CNN and suddenly your video could be on CNN live."

    So, what the blowhard at the London Business School is saying is that in our terrorism-filled future, everyone's an entrepreneur. Everyone with a 3G phone, of course.

    Good evening, and welcome to America's Funniest Home Terrorism Videos!

    This may be the most deeply cynical post-911 spin yet to crawl out of the right wing mind. It makes our own Homeland Security honchos, with their fever dreams of Total Information Awareness, seem amateurish. Think big, fellas. It's time to unite the policy of scaring the public out of its wits with the glories of trickle-down economics. Dare to dream of a future in which technology allows us all to get a piece of the action in the next big terrorist attack!

  • sorry, not this cat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @04:30PM (#6226538) Journal
    "Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame."

    ok, not this guy. Im not going to 'toot-my-own-horn' here, but this is *not* true of everyone. I agree that the NorthAmerica is quickly headed this way, but some of us are actively screaming out in the darkness and trying to convince others to wake up a little.

    Brash consumerism, brand fetishism, ecological devistation, work-a-holism are all a product/cause of our the $wealth$ in NA.

    So, while I am most certainly not a neo-luddite, I put alot of decisions to the "do I *need* that test?". "What is the environmental/social impact of that purchase?" I read labels. I live in "the city", but buy Local Food, from Local Farmers (novel eh?). I wont paint anything outdoors. I reclaimed all the wood from my demolition to serve anew in my home renovation. I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. I am the President of my Local Green Party Riding Association. I run the neighbourhood composter in my back-yard. I only plant indigenous plants in my yard. I use the library instead of buying my own copies of books. I live in a 100year old townhouse "downtown". I ride my bike to work, and walk to the corner-store, and ride with Critical Mass to eductate traffic.

    So, do I think Im better than other people? No, but I do think that other people are mindlessly, and aimlessly being directed by outside influences, driving them to be irresponsible, vapid and destructive to their communities and the planet.

    Bottom Line: Simple choices can help dig North America out of its destructive funk - do something to help out please. As a side note, living this way is MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE. I want to RETIRE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE instead of making bankers rich, work 60hrs a week and let strangers raise my children.

  • Personalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Randym ( 25779 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @04:33PM (#6226566)
    After fingerprint identification, the car's computer tunes the radio to your favourite stations, the mirrors swivel according to your established preferences, and the driver's seat sculpts itself to your bottom.

    Here is where his argument falls down. What is the down side of personalization? AFAIK, there is none. Sure it's ingenious -- it's also tremendously useful.

    Alvin Toffler pointed out in Future Shock (1970) that computer-aided personalization would eventually become ubiquitous. He was right. People *want* things that are customized to their personal preferences and, er, sizes.

    Here are some ways computers have aided personalization: Firefly (Patti Maes, MIT). Bayesian spam filters (many personal computers). Levi's pants (Levis.com). Design your own car (any automaker's site). Customizable news feeds. Even Slashdot itself. ( You ... probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot...)

    I also agree with the posters who pointed out that some innovations have applications undreamed of by their inventors. The Mayans discovered the wheel -- they used in their childrens' toys, and *nowhere else*.

  • Most of you are missing the point (Score:3, Informative)

    by lost in place ( 248578 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @05:37PM (#6227065)
    Please READ the article instead of guessing at what he's saying and flaming it. He is NOT saying:

    - Capitalism is bad because it gives people what they want.

    - Today's robots/PCs are not good enough; we need better technology.

    - If I can't see the use of something, it's useless.

    His essay is not a structural criticism of technology or economy but rather of society's values. I don't think he would criticise the inter/ARPAnet as a technology, but he is criticizing the use of technology for the purpose of building electric eyebrow tweezers, ultrasonic dog polishers and internet-enabled toasters -- as ends in themselves. Yes, we can build them, we can buy them; that's not the point. He's not questioning the purpose of the inventions, he's expressing dismay at the trivility of the answers. If you're satisfied with them, fine.

    Here, have a baby's arm holding an apple.

  • This is idiotic.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by rsheridan6 ( 600425 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @05:47PM (#6227153)
    As if freeing people from the drudgery of things like vacuuming isn't a worthwhile goal.. I suppose he would have said the same thing about washing machines, microwave ovens, power mowers, store-bought clothes and machine churned butter back in the old days.

    Those labor saving devices had a huge impact. Back then, housekeeping was a full time job (generally for the wife). Now, women aren't stuck with that sort of drudgery. Getting rid of the several hours a day we each (those of us who can't afford domestic servants) have to devote to drudge-work will have a major impact too.

  • Robots are dangerous (Score:4, Funny)

    by chuck ( 477 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @07:50PM (#6228192) Homepage
    Old Lady #1: When my ex-husband passed away, the insurance company said his policy didn't cover him.
    Old Lady #2: They didn't have enough money for the funeral.
    Old Lady #3: It's so hard nowadays, with all the gangs and rap music..
    Old Lady #1: What about the robots?
    Old Lady #4: Oh, they're everywhere!
    Old Lady #1: I don't even know why the scientists make them.
    Old Lady #2: Darren and I have a policy with Old Glory Insurance, in case we're attacked by robots.
    Old Lady #1: An insurance policy with a robot plan? Certainly, I'm too old.
    Old Lady #2: Old Glory covers anyone over the age of 50 against robot attack, regardless of current health.

    [ cut to Sam Waterston, Compensated Endorser ]

    Sam Waterson: I'm Sam Waterston, of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel. Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration.

    [ SUPER: Limitied Benefits First Two Years ]

    You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time.

    [ show pie chart reading "Cause of Death in Persons Over 50 Years of Age": Heart Disease, 42% - Robots, 58% ]

    And when they grab you with those metal claws, you can't break free.. because they're made of metal, and robots are strong. Now, for only $4 a month, you can achieve peace of mind in a world full of grime and robots, with Old Glory Insurance. So, don't cower under your afghan any longer. Make a choice.

    [ SUPER: "WARNING: Persons denying the existence of Robots may be Robots themselves. ]

    Old Glory Insurance. For when the metal ones decide to come for you - and they will.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close