Comments on: Is it Failing? http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/ simplicity resources for design, business, technology, and life Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:36:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Daniel F. Bonner http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8512 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:29:32 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8512 I have no quarrel with the root proposition. In fact, absorption, hence virtual invisibility of technology renders us bionic. Still, I am aware that energy's propulsion, something we have taken for granted hitherto, may disappear from time to time. What then? I have no quarrel with the root proposition. In fact, absorption, hence virtual invisibility of technology renders us bionic. Still, I am aware that energy’s propulsion, something we have taken for granted hitherto, may disappear from time to time. What then?

]]> by: Steven S. Barer http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8271 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:16:47 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8271 technology has done both: achieved enormous benefit, and bogged down society with it's own maintenance. most importantly, as with all such progress, it is incumbent on the user to strive for intelligent bounding so that technology doesn't take over, leaving one's life "wired" for better or worse. ( it will almost certainly be for worst when we respond to the ever present wired world, and neglect our personal lives and relationships in doing so) Technology is not good or bad, it's how it's used that defines it's contribution. technology has done both: achieved enormous benefit, and bogged down society with it’s own maintenance.

most importantly, as with all such progress, it is incumbent on the user to strive for intelligent bounding so that technology doesn’t take over, leaving one’s life “wired” for better or worse. ( it will almost certainly be for worst when we respond to the ever present wired world, and neglect our personal lives and relationships in doing so)

Technology is not good or bad, it’s how it’s used that defines it’s contribution.

]]> by: Steven S. Barer http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8270 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:15:39 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8270 technology has done both: achieved enormous benefit, and bogged down society with it's own maintenance. most importantly, as with all such progress, it is incumbent on the user to strivefor intelligent bounding so that technology doesn't take over, leaving one's life "wired" for better or worse. it will almost certainly be for worst when we respond to the ever present wired world, and neglect our personal lives and relationships. Technology is not good or bad, it's how it's used that defines it's contribution. technology has done both: achieved enormous benefit, and bogged down society with it’s own maintenance.

most importantly, as with all such progress, it is incumbent on the user to strivefor intelligent bounding so that technology doesn’t take over, leaving one’s life “wired” for better or worse. it will almost certainly be for worst when we respond to the ever present wired world, and neglect our personal lives and relationships.

Technology is not good or bad, it’s how it’s used that defines it’s contribution.

]]> by: maeda http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8255 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:00:06 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8255 Hi Tony, Yes the series of comments on the Economist carried a similar tenor of question: What is the promise of technology really? Lewis Mumford said it well in the early 1900s about how often the promise of technology was never realized -- he referred to the prospect of electrification at athee time, but everything he said could be eerily applied to the dotcom era. Also, when you say "easy to use" as a definition, I would add "meaningful to use" as another dimension to the definition. Best wishes, John Hi Tony,

Yes the series of comments on the Economist carried a similar tenor of question: What is the promise of technology really? Lewis Mumford said it well in the early 1900s about how often the promise of technology was never realized — he referred to the prospect of electrification at athee time, but everything he said could be eerily applied to the dotcom era.

Also, when you say “easy to use” as a definition, I would add “meaningful to use” as another dimension to the definition. Best wishes, John

]]> by: Tony http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8253 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:19:53 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2008/03/08/is-it-failing/#comment-8253 I think the premise is flawed: "If the promise of technology is to simplify our lives, is it failing?" Who said the promise of technology is to simplify our lives? If I wanted a simple life, I'd live on a farm. The purpose to technology is to create efficiencies, better communication, better access to information and media. Evolution doesn't move us towards the simplistic. Yes, simple technologies, or should I say easy to use technologies, are more likely to take hold over more advanced technologies, but this is because they are easier to integrate into our lives. I think the premise is flawed:
“If the promise of technology is to simplify our lives, is it failing?”

Who said the promise of technology is to simplify our lives? If I wanted a simple life, I’d live on a farm. The purpose to technology is to create efficiencies, better communication, better access to information and media. Evolution doesn’t move us towards the simplistic.

Yes, simple technologies, or should I say easy to use technologies, are more likely to take hold over more advanced technologies, but this is because they are easier to integrate into our lives.

]]>