technology Archives - Page 3 of 8

Self-monitoring toilets and other modern conveniences

I think of HAL in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the characters in the movie Westworld.

There is this article that Dan Lewis of Now I Know pointed to: Why Nothing Works Anymore, with the subtitle “Technology has its own purposes.”

“The contemporary public restroom offers an example. Infrared-sensor flush toilets, fixtures, and towel dispensers are sometimes endorsed on ecological grounds—they are said to save resources by regulating them. But thanks to their overzealous sensors, these toilets increase water or paper consumption substantially. Toilets flush three times instead of one. Faucets open at full-blast. Towel dispensers mete out papers so miserly that people take more than they need.

“Instead of saving resources, these apparatuses mostly save labor and management costs. When a toilet flushes incessantly, or when a faucet shuts off on its own, or when a towel dispenser discharges only six inches of paper when a hand waves under it, it reduces the need for human workers to oversee, clean, and supply the restroom.”

Surely I have experienced this. In the previous building I worked in, the toilet flushed an average of 2.5 times every time. Not only would the faucets only turn on with proper distance wave, they would often fail to turn off even ten minutes later. And there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

I’m not the handiest person in the world, but I have opened the back of a standard toilet to get it to work again. I think this is the same frustration car owners have with everything so calibrated that they can’t fix what’s under the hood. It gives me an uneasy feeling.

I went to this home show maybe decade or so ago, and we marveled how wonderful a “smart” house would be, knowing how efficient it would be. Likewise the driverless car. These would be particular wonders to the elderly and the disabled. But can they be hacked?

Or go rogue? I think of HAL in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the characters in the movie Westworld. I don’t think I’m just being a Luddite when I get wary that technology will always make our lives easier. Maybe paranoid, though.

The Lydster, Part 143: playing with Fire

My loving child regularly mocks me.

ALL of her friends had some sort of electronic device, and she did not, so someone (Santa? The Wife, and I? I forget) gave The Daughter an Amazon Fire for Christmas. It was one of the best presents I ever got.

For one thing, it ended the fussing over The Wife’s work iPad. It was entrusted to the adult, of course, but the child knew far better how to actually USE the thing. I was of no help in this arena either.

The Daughter getting her own device means The Wife doesn’t complain that her device is not charged, or not in her school bag in the morning as she heads off to work. Not hearing this repeated disagreement is GREAT, for ME, and for them as well.

Another thing: it made MY Amazon Fire, purchased some months ago, actually usable. For some reason, I had to change the password in our home WiFi last summer, and the Time Warner Cable guy said, “You’d better write it down because it’s unretrievable.” Well, I DID lose it, in fairly short order. I had my device but couldn’t use it at home.

Since The Daughter wanted to use her new machine at home, I called TWC anyway – something I wouldn’t have bothered to do for myself – and, lo and behold, was able to reset the password to something this Census geek can actually remember.

Oh, yeah. The Wife has a habit of putting all the plugs for all the devices in a drawer, but somehow, my Fire charger went MIA. Now, I can use The Daughter’s charger; yeah, I could have bought a new one, but I did not. My loving child regularly mocks me when she realizes things she can do after two days that I never figured out in four months.

Endangered skills?

I find it online banking so much easier than the paper version.

When you know you’re going to be unavailable, and you want to write ahead, you do list thingies. Thanks to fillyjonk:

20 Skills Facing Extinction
According to a survey, “younger generations have a lack of interest in things like reading maps, tying knots and remembering phone numbers. They don’t know how to knit, use a compass, darn a sock or write in cursive. Here are the following 20 skills facing extinction.”

1. Reading a map: Yes, I can do this; I often serve as a navigator, going back to my childhood. What I CAN’T do, apparently, is refold a road map properly. But I have loved maps since my grandfather gave me maps from his National Geographic magazines; still have a few of them.
2. Using a compass: I have, but haven’t had much need.
3. Tie a specific knot: Depends. I was excruciatingly slow learning to tie my shoes; I wore penny loafers until I was nine. On one particular job, I had to tie boxes in bundles of 20, and I had a bear of a time; I quit after two weeks. Ah, let’s say no; literally, I was no Boy Scout.
4. Darn socks: I never have.
5. Looking something up in a book using an index rather than ‘Googling it’: I AM a librarian, and in my office is a shelf of reference books, which I find not only easier to use than Google, but far more reliable.

6. Correct letter-writing technique: I DO know this, but haven’t much need of late.
7. Understanding pounds and ounces: I know a ton about this.
8. Knowing your spelling and grammar: Despite the typos in this blog, I really am quite good at this. I’ve even been known to offer correction to others, and they correct me.
9. Converting pounds and ounces to grams and kilograms: 2.2 pounds is a kilogram; knew without looking it up.
10. Starting a fire from nothing: Well, I’ve done it with a piece of glass and dried grass, but not in a long while. But NOTHING nothing? No.

11. Handwriting: I know the rules, but the truth is my handwriting is terrible. Thank goodness for the computer.
12. Understanding feet and inches: It helps to have a young daughter who is learning this anew, but yes, and fathoms, and furlongs, and miles.
13. Knitting: No, nor any of those other fine arts, such as crocheting.
14. Remembering a friend or relative’s phone number. Several of them, if they haven’t changed, including both of my sisters. The problem is that people get cellphones, and get new numbers. Then I NEVER remember the new numbers.
15. Remembering a partner’s phone number. I know The Wife’s cellphone number. I also remember her Social Security number.

16. Identifying trees, insects, flowers: Not my strength, except for the really obvious ones. Ah, a purple flower…
17. Touch typing. I’m a terrible typist.
18. Baking bread from scratch. I’ve done it, don’t particular enjoy it.
19. Taking up trousers. No.
20. Wiring a plug. A qualified no. I’ve actually done it from modeling another, but not my strength.

I also have changed a car tire, though it’s been years. I can figure out square root by hand and occasionally do so, just as a mental exercise. I hate automatic bowling scoring because I’d rather do it myself.

They also apparently listed “10 essential skills for modern life”

1. Searching the Internet: Evidently, I have figured this out, and not just Google.
2. Using/ connecting to WiFi: Done that. It’s fun traveling on a bus and finding the goofy hot spot names.
3. Using a smartphone. Rarely have done this. And I so seldom use my dumb phone.
4. Online banking. Actually, I find it so much easier than the paper version.
5. Knowing about privacy settings online: I probably should do more.

6. Searching and applying for jobs online; I’ve actually been on the other side of this, on search committees. Don’t much like it, but it’s “efficient.”
7. Being able to turn the water off at the mains. Haven’t had the need.
8. Using and following a sat-nav: You mean GPS? I’m inherently suspicious of it, ever since I was in my brother-in-law’s car some years ago and we literally drove around in circles. I like road signs, directions, maps. Mark Evanier has a good example of blind reliance on GPS.
9. Updating and installing computer programs. I’ve done it. There’s usually something wrong, and I have to reinstall.
10. Working a tablet: I like them. I can work them. The problem is that I tend to kill them.

Clones and other technology; and music

I didn’t think much of the Monkees, the original Prefab Four.

More of those Ask Roger Anything answers.

My colleague Ed asked:

So, if the technology existed (it will sooner or later) that would do the following 2 things:
1) As soon as you are born a clone would be created with your DNA. This clone would grow in a chamber inanimate until it is needed when you die.
2) From the moment of birth everything that ever happens in your life will be uploaded in real time to storage.

Premise one: You step off of the curb to cross the street and are struck and killed by a bus. At the exact moment of impact you real-time data is downloaded to your growing clones brain and the clone is activated. The clone sits up exacerbated and screams “Oh My God” in regard and reaction to the last memory recorded just a millisecond ago and then relaxes and realizes what happened and that he has just been killed but also been reanimated. Every single memory and experience from life in his previous body intact. Two main questions (this is from a scientific and logic perspective)

Q:1 – Is that clone really you? Has your life been extended?

Q:2 (slightly different scenario) What if you stepped off and jumped back on the sidewalk just in time and didn’t get hit and killed, BUT the process still ran at that exact moment to activate your clone as detailed above) Now, is that you? Or are you you?
I ask this because it seems to me that all of our thoughts and ideas on how to really extend life to the point of negligible immortality believe it to be your mind and memories alone that make you, you. I believe my Q:2 with scenario 2 disproves that idea. There has to be more to it.

Hey Rog, you said to ask a question – I did 🙂

I say no, and certainly no. Because the YOU, in scenario #1, never recovers from that bus accident. You are always You. The other you might be You 2.0.

Incidentally, in Things Movies and TV Always Get Wrong About Human Cloning, item #5, Exact Duplicates notes- “If you look at twins in the real world, even identical twins who share the exact same DNA, they are never exactly the same. That’s because genetics are only part of what makes someone unique. Things like nutrition, environment, parenting, physical injury (or lack thereof), and personal choice can change someone’s appearance drastically.”

So I reject the premise of the question. But I am fascinated by the notion of clones.

It seems that I evoke the notion of wishing I had a clone under two very divergent scenarios. 1) I’d like the clone to do the boring, tedious task, such as mowing the lawn, so that the Real Me can ride the bike with the daughter. 2) I want to do two pleasurable things simultaneously, such as, at 9:30 Sunday morning, both attend choir rehearsal AND the adult education class; in this case, I obviously want to experience BOTH events.
***
The distinguished SamuraiFrog wonders:

What obsolete technology do you still like to use and will never get rid of?

Never say never, I suppose, but, in all likelihood:

Books, including quite a few reference books on music, movies, and TV, because I can find the info nearly as fast as online, assuming I can get it on a webpage at all.

A watch. The argument I have actually been given: “Why have a device that does only one thing?” Because I don’t need to DO but one thing in that moment, and that’s to get the time, literally with the flick of my wrist.

A record player. I still have over 1500 LPs, and some of the music is NOT available in other forms.

A landline phone (probably). This is more a function of not knowing where my cellphone is or forgetting to charge it, for days at a time, and not particularly caring that much about the loss.
***
Amy, the Sharp Little Pencil:

OK, you asked, so now I am asking… er…

Who is your absolute, alltime, stuck-on-a-desert-island-with-one-CD favorite singer?

You are a cruel woman.

I was thinking about Ray Charles, but I ended up picking Nat King Cole. I have this album of early Ray Charles, titled “the Early Ray Charles,” and he sounded amazingly like Nat; BTW, that album got me in a bit of trouble.

My late mother had a bunch of Nat 78s; I’m sure she had a crush. In his own way, he was a television pioneer. That he died young because of cigarettes broke my heart.

LISTEN to The very best of Nat King Cole.
***
Jaquandor ponders:

If John and George were still alive, would the Beatles reunion have already taken place? If so, where and when?

Almost certainly. After John’s five-year self-imposed musical exile to help raise his second son, Sean, he’d want to see how his music was received. And it would have done fine, not as well as Double Fantasy did as a result of his death, unless, of course, he went on the road, which he seemed to be planning to do.

Then Milk and Honey would have been released (ditto), and he’d figure that he didn’t need to prove anything. He might show up on a Ringo album, or have George guest on one of his. Eventually, they’d all get together. It might be a small gig in Liverpool, or a larger one in London, but probably something in New York City, the location that propelled Beatlemania.

LISTEN to some Beatles songs.
***
Arthur@AmeriNZ wants to know:

Pop Culture: Have there been any recording artists who you loved, then later in their career you though, “Hm, no, that’s just not any good.”

I’m hard-pressed to think of one. I think whoever they were met my needs at the time. Take the Chipmunks, who I thought were terribly funny, but find much less so now. Still, David Seville (Ross Bagdasarian, Sr.) gets mondo props for controlling speeds to create an effect.

Or, the opposite: Artists you formerly loathed and grew to appreciate or even like?

Would not go as far as loathe, but I didn’t think much of the Monkees, the original Prefab Four, who eventually DID play their own instruments and write their own songs.

They were also EXTREMELY successful. Their first album, in 1966, was #1 for 13 weeks, More of the Monkees for 18 weeks, Headquarters for one week – probably because the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper then came out and dominated for 15 weeks. But then Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, and Jones, Ltd. ended 1967 on top for five weeks.

In 1966, the Beatles had the #1 album in the US for 18 weeks, the Monkees for 7; in 1967, the Beatles – 15 weeks, the Monkees – 30.

LISTEN to The Monkees The Singles Collection

S is for skeuomorphism

Skeuomorphism increases your understanding of the product.

Friend Dan wrote to me about the word skeuomorphism, which was not in my vocabulary. But I didn’t see the email right away since it ended up in my spam folder, because “It’s written in a different language than your messages typically use.”

So what IS it? The Technopedia explains:

Skeuomorphism refers to a design principle in which design cues are taken from the physical world. This term is most frequently applied to user interfaces (UIs), where much of the design has traditionally aimed to recall the real world – such as the use of folder and files images for computer filing systems, or a letter symbol for email – probably to make computers feel more familiar to users.

Yeah, sure. I hadn’t thought about it, but that was a really ingenious idea.

However, this approach is increasingly being criticized for its lack of ingenuity and its failure to pioneer designs that truly harness a computer’s superior capabilities, rather than forcing it to merely mimic the behavior of a physical object.

Wait, what?

Skeuomorphism has increasingly come under fire, largely because many of the nostalgic elements it attempts to portray – such as calendars, day planners, address books, etc. – are almost entirely foreign to younger generations of users. In addition, critics of skeuomorphism point to this reliance of physical objects in design as an impediment to making more useful designs.

In fact, skeuomorphism in computers is already starting to die.

But, but, but, without those cues, I’d NEVER figure out any devices. It’s hard enough for me, as it is. I agree with Matt Webb, operator of BERG, “a design company that makes electronic devices incorporating human faces and emotions”:

“People that criticise skeuomorphism say it’s pointless, but I say it isn’t. It increases your understanding of the product. Technology is getting so complicated that we’re going to have to find ways for people to understand what it can do without having to spell it out.”

Or as friend Dan put it, ” It’s not so much fake as a bridge between two things or systems.”

The term long predates computers. From The Economist:

The term skeuomorph was originally coined in 1889 to refer to an ornamental design derived from the structure of an earlier form of a particular object… Examples would be car seats made of plastic, but textured to imitate leather; plastic spoons moulded with patterns to provide an echo of engraved silver; or imitation wood-grain printed on furniture or flooring.

ABC Wednesday – Round 16