Skip to main content

The future of all that mobile gadgetry

Each new mobile product seems to lead us to conclude that that no one will come up with a smaller, smarter or unique gizmo than we are presently using. But, the techies keep on rolling out new "toys" - which we all seem to rush out to buy. Exhibit #1 - the Apple iPad.

Slate peers into the future:

"But let's start with the devices themselves. The most basic question about tomorrow's mobile gadgets is one that we're struggling to answer today: How many different devices will we have? At the moment, we have a lot of different tools with overlapping functionality. You can read books on your smartphone, tablet, or e-reader. You can play tunes and watch movies on your music player, phone, or tablet. If you're going on a trip, do you carry your phone and your laptop, your phone and your tablet, your phone and your e-reader, or just your phone? Some people will carry everything—see last year's Wall Street Journal profile of tech geeks who carry too many electronics when they travel. (Phil Libin, the CEO of the software company Evernote, carries a 26-pound backpack stuffed with computers, tablets, phones, cameras, batteries, and cables.) Most of us, though, are going to spend our time and money on just one or two of these devices. Now imagine it's 2016. Which gadgets are you taking along on your morning commute?

I'm betting on the smartphone and the tablet—in other words, you'll carry a small computer for your pocket and a bigger one for your purse or backpack. I'm not predicting that other devices will die out—people will still use e-readers, laptops, video cameras, and music players, but we'll think of them as niche devices, things you reach for when you want to do something specialized."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more