So I was just thinking about technological advances and how unpredictable they are. In the 50s people envisioned a future (now present) of flying cars, robot butlers, jet packs, teleportation devices (hopefully the kind that doesn't create human-fly hybrids), and rocket ships. Aside from the robo-butler (who may or may not have been built with optional hover boots) these are primarily innovations in the transportation field, most being immediately obsolete with the advent of teleportation (depending on cost and availability of course and a rational/irrational fear of becoming a fly-man or woman).
So instead of flying cars, we have iMacs. In place of robotic servants, we have iPhones. In lieu of rocket ships, we have iPod Nanos. And who needs a jetpack when you have an iPad in your iBackpack?
Essentially all leaps in transportation technology have been laid on the wayside in favor of smaller and smaller (then a little bigger again) computer technology. And just as all cars are really just variations on the infernal [sic] combustion engine, all our recent inventions of note revolve around the word App. Who saw that coming (beside Stevie Jobs)?
Instead of calling us the Me
Generation they should call us the iGeneration. But only out of mockery.
Also I Googled (one of our best recent inventions) the term iGeneration. There is I-Generation pro wrestlers featuring Dennis Rodman (I assume the I stands for idiot). It also stands for Internet Generation, another name of Generation Z. Lame.
Did you know the i in iMac, iPod etc., stands for Internet? That's stupid because the first several iPods didn't directly use the Internet.
The only thing I can think of that people actually looked forward to having that did actually come to fruition: 3-D television. Guess what the D stands for? Hint: it starts with the letter d and rhymes with gum.
Wasn't Captain Eo enough to last us a lifetime? After watching that emotional disturber prancing into my lap, I say "no thanks, I'm good" to 3-D from then until the end of my emotionally scarred days.
3-D is just too gimmicky. I want the right amount of gimmick. Besides the real world is already in at least that many dimensions.
What is the point of this blog? I think it means we have too many i's before things. What's that rule again? i before c [everything] except after what? And also 3-D is either too many or not enough dimensions for me. Not the right amount of Ds!
I hate 3-d.
ReplyDeleteWatching TV and you have to go to the bathroom but you don't want to miss a moment of entertainment? Ther's an app for that.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to invent the iflush. It's like ring tones for your toilet
I saw the last 15 minutes of a World Cup game on a 3D TV they set up to preview for the employees. (I'm at Disney right now, who owns ESPN.) And I generally agree that 3D is dumb...however, watching real life in 3D was completely different than any 3D I've ever seen. It made Avatar feel amateur, and that was the best in 3D before. It was the closest you could come to actually being there, because it made you feel like the game was right in front of you. Whereas, with Avatar and movies, you still know it's fake, the whole situation feels fake, and it's like you're watching a cartoon.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to rush out and get a 3D TV, but it's a huge leap forward. And if it's a gimmick, so was film in the early days. Radio stations were first formed by manufacturers to sell their radios, and TV was just an excuse for advertising. Gimmicks are what pushes technology forward.
3D is an irritating gimmick that gives me a headache. Maybe someday they'll create a better way of doing 3D, but for now I would rather just watch my shows in peace and two Ds.
ReplyDelete