Bashing and Praising Technology

I was just re-reading Sarah Lacy’s is the all-in-one-device dream doomed and wanted to echo the gist of her remarks.

Whether you have an iPhone, an Android-based device (such as the G1), a Windows Mobile smartphone, a Palm device, one of the latest BlackBerry’s, or whatever, you are probably feeling like it just lacks some of what you’d expect it to deliver. Even if the device is pretty darned good, you may still be disappointed with the carrier that provides it, and wish that you could get the same device through another carrier.

Like Sarah, you may have decided to carry around more than one device. If I had not retired, and were still traveling a lot, I definitely would have the latest and greatest devices from at least AT&T and Verizon, and possibly from T-Mobile or Sprint, too. And, of course I would waste time trying to keep those devices in sync, failing miserably because the different operating systems of the devices make it hard to sync them all. I would either give up and keep all of my data in the cloud, so I could get it from any of the devices, or I would have one device for data, with the others being for backup email and so on.

You’d think that the technology leadership position of the US would have resulted in better all-in-one devices, and in better coverage by the carriers.

Then, of course, there are the desktop operating systems that one could fuss about. If you upgraded to Windows Vista early on, you may well have wondered whether the system was one step forward or two steps backward.

But, there are a lot of good developments in technology, too. Take something as conceptually simple as the crash-protection technology of modern cars. The stats from the Mind Hacks article Car crash over before consciousness kicks in are fascinating. Here is a partial reprint:

This is a reconstruction of a crash involving a stationary Ford Falcon XT sedan being struck in the driver’s door by another vehicle travelling at 50 km/h.

0 milliseconds – An external object touches the driver’s door.

1 ms – The car’s door pressure sensor detects a pressure wave.

2 ms – An acceleration sensor in the C-pillar behind the rear door also detects a crash event.

2.5 ms – A sensor in the car’s centre detects crash vibrations.

5 ms – Car’s crash computer checks for insignificant crash events, such as a shopping trolley impact or incidental contact. It is still working out the severity of the crash. Door intrusion structure begins to absorb energy.

…

If you read the article, I think you’ll be fascinated by technology involved, and how quickly it works to protect you (all before you even realize there was a crash).

I am also fascinated by much of today’s medical technology. This is a field that has developed rapidly during my lifetime. I recall that, almost 35 years ago, as I was wrapping up my MSEE thesis at Georgia Tech, the school came out with a course on bioengineering. It sounded so intriguing that I audited it, and I learned a lot. Perhaps if the field had been available for study 4 years earlier, I would have gotten a degree in bioengineering.

And advances in nanotechnology are going to make bioengineering technology even more “futuristic,” in the very near future.

As another and final example of fascinating technology, I recently read where scientists doing work on artificial intelligence are saying that “in another 40 years, AI will be so much smarter than we are, that we will not be able to understand it.” That is fascinating, almost to the point of being scary. That will be an interesting time to live in.

Anyway, I had this stuff on my mind and just thought I’d rid myself of it, so I could move my thoughts on to something else.

Your thoughts?