As · Kart · Sees · It

I was born into the technology age. 80's and 90's TV (arguably better then a majority of the modern variety), Nintendo at its best, the birth of the World Wide Web. As I've grown older, I've become both more and less dependent on them. When the internet craze started in the late 90's, I had a fairly basic computer, a cheap modem connection and a Super Nintendo sitting in the lounge room. I was content with all those things, happy with how simple yet effective they were, and how much fun it all was.

Things haven't really changed. I have a fairly basic computer, nothing too flash, a cheap adsl connection and an Xbox sitting in my bedroom. They do all the same things, though of course at a more advanced level. But I'm still content, their still simple yet effecive, still just as much fun, if not more so in places. So I start to investigate the new technology that's coming through the ranks, wondering how all these new fangled items will fill the gap left behind by those I have now, when the eventual time comes to upgrade. I wonder ... will be it better next time around? Or actually worse?

There's a huge number of things that may, or may not, occur within the next ten years or so. The obvious ones, High definition TV and the next generation DVD's, are slowly but quickly taking their steps into the market. There are others that are also growing at a steady rate, Digital TV (Foxtel) and higher speed DSL the best examples. Steven Soderbergh's recently produced movie, Bubble, will be the first of its kind to be simultaneously released at cinema's, on DVD and through cable TV. Imagine a time where fans no longer have to line up for hours on end to see the next instalment of Harry Potter, instead lining up at their nearest DVD retailer or waiting impatiently to press the 'download' button on their PC or consoles.

The constant churning out of new technology has two impacts upon business and customers alike. For creators of new technology, the pressure to keep up with the competition and constantly refining its own products can have both positive and negative reactions, at least in terms of profit and loss. Take Apple, as a perfect example. The Ipod has been through as many iterations of itself over the last five years, if not less, then the same amount of times its taken Microsoft to churn out new versions of Windows since 3.11 back in the early 90's.
Why? Research and development runs almost overtime, a non-stop brain surge of new ideas and trials, demos and sketches. The results, thanks to the ease of which technology can be created these days then a handful of years before, are quicker. I bought an Ipod Mini less then six montsh ago, and already it's been replaced by two newer products, the video Pod and Nano. But the changes have been the right ones, at least so far, and have brought in both exisitng customers and new alike. Therefore, profits have surged, placing Apple at the head of portable audio entertainment.

Now, take the other scale. Sony, who dove into the gaming world with a bang with the Sony Playstation, are on the verge of releasing theri third iteration of the console. But things have changed since the early PS2 days. When that console was released, it outstripped Nintendo's 64 by a wide margin and then held firm against the Xbox and Gamecube. This time Microsoft will get the first jump, and perhaps Nintendo the second, leaving Sony the third one in line.
Now as we all know by the PS2, the first in is, more often then not, the best dressed. Any console that ships through the door before the competition has a chance to find its user base, build a solid collection of software, and filter through-out the international community, perhaps replacing those who stuck with the PS2 or Gamecube all these years. So this time, Sony are behind the eightball. Why? Because since technology is running so rapidly up the scale, consoles go through ten of hundreds of iterations before a final specification is settled upon. In this case, Sony don't seem to be completly settled with what it currently has (nevermind the bat-shaped controller).

As it is, all three consoles will be up there with the latest PC technology upon their various releases. Within a year they will all be out of date, at least in processing power, as IBM and the like do their own thing. Not that the games on said consoles will be any worse then the PC counterparts ... but that's another article for another day.

TBC

A few years ago I graduated from high school. At that time, nearly all my friends were driving cars, either on L or P plates. Most were decent enough when it came to driving, while others used it as a chance to dig their early graves.

Sound harsh? Think about it. How many people die on our roads each year? Now, how many of those are between the ages of 17 and, say, 40?

Locally, in 2005, there were 152 reported car accidents and 164 deaths, down only marginally on the year before. 47 of those deaths were between the ages of 17 and 24, while another 48 where killed at age of 25 through to 39. That's 95 in total, more then half.

Now I'm not suggesting that younger drivers are completly to blame for the records, but the stats don't lie. Clearly the younger you are, the more likely it is that you will come to grief. But why is that? What makes younger drivers more open to accident? Surely older drivers, with poor eyesight and lower strength levels, would be better candidates for such things?

My driving instructor once told me that the reason why it's better to start learning to drive at a younger age is because, at that time of your life, you are far more carefree, more interested in living life then worrying about taxes, bills and when the next election is coming along ... not that we oldbies worry about elections anyhow.

Point being, the younger you are, the less likely you'll feel intimidated to follow the rules. That, of course, is the big problem. Through this state of mind, taking resposibility for such things, such as driving, doesn't always come into question for a young 17 year old just starting life out of the school drone.

My instructor also told me that sometimes the best way to learn how to live life is by having a close call or two to wake you up. Now I don't completly agree with this, but I guess the teen society does since they love it ... to death.

It's easy for me to say such things, since I never drove at that age. I'm only doing it now, and I'm 23! I've become far more cautious to the world around me, but not too much. I still have a sense of the carefree life at times, but only when the occasion suits it. It just annoys the crap out of me to turn on the TV each day and hear how another young driver caused chaos on our roads. How many more accidents will it take for everyone to realise it isn't a game anymore?

We've all had the talk from our parents, going on about drink, drugs, sex. It's all a matter of choice. Once we pass that age where adulthood takes over, whether it's right or wrong doesn't really factor in anymore. If we want it, we'll have it. There are other options, too, and sadly those involve other states of mind, violent and otherwise. That can be attributed, in part, to the way we are brought up and those around us. So as much as human life is a fragile thing, we are still yet to learn to take care of it, let alone understand it.

How do we change this, if at all? Is it possible to reach into our minds and make the obvious crystal clear? I may answer them on another occasion. What do you think?