I am always amazed at the number and quality of technological advances that the world makes. There are gadgets that get written about and everyone wants a piece of it when actually its just a piece of shit. I managed to get tricked into buying the Moto Razr V3i. But then there are Ipods which at one time were a big ‘wow’ to me and I still think they’re great. Another ‘wow’ advance has been reported by Time magazine in its 19th February issue - the cheap and functional plastic microchip.
The article says that plastic chips will be increasingly used instead of silicon chips with market researchers at Virginia-based NanoMarkets predicting that plastic electronics will be worth nearly $35 billion by 2014. Plastic Logic, the company that came up with the idea of plastic chips will first produce a portable reader - a device that will let us carry our whole library on a sheet of plastic. However they will be available only in 2008. Then there are host of other high tech plastic gadgets that they have planned out.
Yes, all this seems very exciting. However the article to me is a brilliant piece of PR. Plastic Logic has attracted many venture capitalists and investors, but very obviously it is looking for more. But then, this innovation that could perhaps cut down the price of electronic circuitry by up to 90 per cent and the setting up of a factory requires capital. However no one seems to have contemplated the environmental damages this product will bring about. After all, this is plastic we’re talking about - and plastic is hugely non bio degradable. Whether we are trading the planet for short term benefits, only time will tell.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Sunday, 25 February 2007
National obsession... you must be joking!!
Victoria Beckham was quoted in the Metro saying something to the extent of -
When I go to a party I put in all the effort to dress up, whereas some people don't seem to bother about the way they look. It's such a disappointment.
This was in answer to a question on what upset her the most. She also said that she took all the time and spent all the money on grooming, while others looked like they could've been in their pj's at a party.
And this is the woman Britons and millions around the world are obsessed with? An extremely skinny style icon who's major concern is not war, poverty, disease, football or even music (for heaven's sake!!) but the poor fashion sense of her colleagues... Wonder what she has to say about the size zero debate?!
It makes me think about what the whole concept of celebrity is. Is it all about looking good, being in top 10 lists and of course being rich and famous. I also know that for every Victoria Beckham there is a Bono and an Oprah. But celebrities with causes are few and far in between. Especially women. Women are more likely to be known for their diva like tanturums, their wardrobe, sex appeal, botoxed makeovers, eating disorders and for checking into rehab because of ill physical or mental health.
Ironically, women by nature are more sensitive, caring and possibly more humane. What happens to them in the spotlight that makes them irrational and stupid, I don't know. Except for a few who consistently champion 'real' causes after achieving status and celebrityhood like Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie, I'm not even aware if women in film and media are doing much for the progress of society. Maybe they do things in secret, but I think its time that people know what that is. Simply because nature imitates art as art imitates nature.
I wouldn't want my children to have vain role models who care for nothing more than self gain. I would want them to know who the real hero's are. And Victoria Beckham is not one of them.
When I go to a party I put in all the effort to dress up, whereas some people don't seem to bother about the way they look. It's such a disappointment.
This was in answer to a question on what upset her the most. She also said that she took all the time and spent all the money on grooming, while others looked like they could've been in their pj's at a party.
And this is the woman Britons and millions around the world are obsessed with? An extremely skinny style icon who's major concern is not war, poverty, disease, football or even music (for heaven's sake!!) but the poor fashion sense of her colleagues... Wonder what she has to say about the size zero debate?!
It makes me think about what the whole concept of celebrity is. Is it all about looking good, being in top 10 lists and of course being rich and famous. I also know that for every Victoria Beckham there is a Bono and an Oprah. But celebrities with causes are few and far in between. Especially women. Women are more likely to be known for their diva like tanturums, their wardrobe, sex appeal, botoxed makeovers, eating disorders and for checking into rehab because of ill physical or mental health.
Ironically, women by nature are more sensitive, caring and possibly more humane. What happens to them in the spotlight that makes them irrational and stupid, I don't know. Except for a few who consistently champion 'real' causes after achieving status and celebrityhood like Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie, I'm not even aware if women in film and media are doing much for the progress of society. Maybe they do things in secret, but I think its time that people know what that is. Simply because nature imitates art as art imitates nature.
I wouldn't want my children to have vain role models who care for nothing more than self gain. I would want them to know who the real hero's are. And Victoria Beckham is not one of them.
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Bringing down the heroes (un-edited version)
I’ve always had a little soft spot for Bill Gates, what with him and his wife doing all that philanthropic work. Although Microsoft as a company has been criticized and derided for their "monopolistic" practises, lack of security and stability of software, with innumerable lawsuits, Mr. Gates has made many valuable contributions to the software industry and humanity.
Even so, I’m not surprised at fresh criticism of Microsoft’s latest ‘Vista’. The New Statesman, in its article ‘Hasta La Vista, Baby’ brings out the alleged ‘secret side’ of Windows Vista. It claims that Vista represents the height of content control, and has digital rights management (DRM) code that defines how we can use our own CD’s and DVD’s. It also discourages one from connecting screens or audio equipment that do no have content protection measures in place.
The reason I find this very odd is that yes - Microsoft is probably trying to protect corporations and the music industry so that intellectual property rights are not violated through the use of Vista - they will make a lot of money here - but why should the average computer user feel threatened? The writer says ‘DRM is fine if you don't do anything too naughty, like try to copy your CD collection on to your PC too many times.’ Is this what we should be angry about? Not being able to use illegal content freely? She also advocates the use of Linux, which is on the other hand has a low graphical user interface but is an open source operating software which is free. A black and green interface above my coloured one is not reeason enough for me to switch. Maybe the New Statesman thinks it is.
Oddly enough, in a list compiled by the New Statesman in May 2006, Bill Gates was voted eighth in the list of "Heroes of our time".
Even so, I’m not surprised at fresh criticism of Microsoft’s latest ‘Vista’. The New Statesman, in its article ‘Hasta La Vista, Baby’ brings out the alleged ‘secret side’ of Windows Vista. It claims that Vista represents the height of content control, and has digital rights management (DRM) code that defines how we can use our own CD’s and DVD’s. It also discourages one from connecting screens or audio equipment that do no have content protection measures in place.
The reason I find this very odd is that yes - Microsoft is probably trying to protect corporations and the music industry so that intellectual property rights are not violated through the use of Vista - they will make a lot of money here - but why should the average computer user feel threatened? The writer says ‘DRM is fine if you don't do anything too naughty, like try to copy your CD collection on to your PC too many times.’ Is this what we should be angry about? Not being able to use illegal content freely? She also advocates the use of Linux, which is on the other hand has a low graphical user interface but is an open source operating software which is free. A black and green interface above my coloured one is not reeason enough for me to switch. Maybe the New Statesman thinks it is.
Oddly enough, in a list compiled by the New Statesman in May 2006, Bill Gates was voted eighth in the list of "Heroes of our time".
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
Great Britain, little understanding
I have always questioned the concept of what these days is fashionably called ‘karma’. If what goes around comes around, how is it that countries like the United Kingdom still flourish. Aren’t these the people who plundered countries like mine i.e. India, and caused poverty and destruction to an extent? However I cannot help but wonder whether all the social tension in the country - the terror attacks etc is all because of bad karma.
Of course Britain likes to see itself as multi-cultural and all embracing of global ethos. The leader in last week’s Economist talks about how globalisation has done wonders for Britain. And yet Britons worry about its Muslim community who are looked upon as the ‘harbingers’ of terror. According to the article the only reason Britons ‘spirits are low’ is because the presence of ‘lots of foreigners’ is making it uncomfortable. On the other hand they laud their imperial past and trading relations with 'foreigners'. Considering the fact that none of the colonies benefited too much from British rule, I can only see this an attitude of selfishness that dominates the British mentality. An attitude of use and throw.
Perhaps old habits die hard, but the article seems to suggest that all Britons want is to use the best resources - be it labour or services without respecting the culture of those they use. Forcing non-Islamic laws down the throats of the Muslim community is not going to get a welcome response - reflected in the controversy of veils. Though in the article there are suggestions of how to put the individual at the heart of all things, it comes across as very half hearted and does not attempt to understand WHY the 'home grown terrorists' behave the way they do. Or maybe I just did.
Of course Britain likes to see itself as multi-cultural and all embracing of global ethos. The leader in last week’s Economist talks about how globalisation has done wonders for Britain. And yet Britons worry about its Muslim community who are looked upon as the ‘harbingers’ of terror. According to the article the only reason Britons ‘spirits are low’ is because the presence of ‘lots of foreigners’ is making it uncomfortable. On the other hand they laud their imperial past and trading relations with 'foreigners'. Considering the fact that none of the colonies benefited too much from British rule, I can only see this an attitude of selfishness that dominates the British mentality. An attitude of use and throw.
Perhaps old habits die hard, but the article seems to suggest that all Britons want is to use the best resources - be it labour or services without respecting the culture of those they use. Forcing non-Islamic laws down the throats of the Muslim community is not going to get a welcome response - reflected in the controversy of veils. Though in the article there are suggestions of how to put the individual at the heart of all things, it comes across as very half hearted and does not attempt to understand WHY the 'home grown terrorists' behave the way they do. Or maybe I just did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
