|
Post by viruszero on Feb 15, 2008 23:24:28 GMT -5
That's why I supplied the idea of uniqueness as a desired characteristic.
If something is unique (as opposed to 1000 exact carbon copies) then it becomes much more desirable and thus it's quality would be higher, so then if we can produce a thousand of <object> then each one's worth is less than the previous's until it reaches a fixed point at which no matter how many more are made the value won't decrease any further.
Also there is degredation in that say you produce something and it starts making money, and I want some of that money so I begin to produce a slightly cheaper knock off version, fully compatible with yours (lets say cellphone...) So now my cellphone is a degraded version of your own... And such any one who copies from me will be degraded further. A copy from a copy does not improve in quality.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Feb 15, 2008 23:49:44 GMT -5
If something is unique (as opposed to 1000 exact carbon copies) then it becomes much more desirable and thus it's quality would be higher, so then if we can produce a thousand of <object> then each one's worth is less than the previous's until it reaches a fixed point at which no matter how many more are made the value won't decrease any further. Also there is degredation in that say you produce something and it starts making money, and I want some of that money so I begin to produce a slightly cheaper knock off version, fully compatible with yours (lets say cellphone...) So now my cellphone is a degraded version of your own... And such any one who copies from me will be degraded further. A copy from a copy does not improve in quality. As far as I can see - the first paragraph - that's why they tend to release handphones of newer models time and time again. And they stop releasing the others. As for the 2nd paragraph, I can certainly tell that is piracy. Which is not permitted in many countries. I think you are sort of misunderstanding the issue of how machinery contributes to the values of products. Machines only produce the products we desire - the degradation of the product can only be caused by human abuse or even decrease of creative input into the product.
|
|
|
Post by viruszero on Feb 16, 2008 0:35:31 GMT -5
The second example may be piracy but it also occurs quite frequently, and you have to admit the knock off doesn't usually live up to the standards of the official quality product. So that alone should prove that copying a copy doesn't work, but even if I didn't rip directly from you, say I developed my own from scratch, so now there are 2 cellphones on the market, and soon 3 and more, now the market had hundreds, it's overwhelmed and thus degraded.
In the first example, it's exactly with the cellphones, so many are made that they already have the bottom price so they release limited or special versions to try to salvage and sell more. Granted companies are greedy and count their costs before producing them... So by the time the product hits the shelves they've already sunk X dollars into it and are looking for returns.
But also the technology improves and newer technologies are created also degrading the overall product in comparison to the others. Technology begins to degrade the second it's produced because new technology is always being created... exactly why if you buy a computer it will be outdated as soon as it's in your hands. There'll be a better one under the shelf, and an even better one behind the counter, and a better still one out back, and an even better stil one being unloaded off a truck, and so on right until we get to the producers waking up in the morning thinking "Oh today I'll invent... Oh drat too late, it's already been invented".
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Feb 16, 2008 9:01:58 GMT -5
A copied product is still a copied product, but even if that product is not as good as the original, it doesn't mean that technology is degraded by doing so.
When you say technology is degraded, I had a terrible impression. However, it is quite wrong to say that. Technology can go on being improved, and abuse is widespread. But it is the value of the technology, the value, which is degraded, not technology as itself.
An obsolete product does not make it degraded. It is still a piece of many assembled materials, but it is its value of purpose that is either devalued or degraded, not the product as a whole.
As for the newer technology part, it also still doesn't degrade the older ones overall. It's just that the older ones had lost its purpose.
I believe you have confused the meaning of improvement and degradation together.
|
|
|
Post by Sonic on Feb 16, 2008 12:21:22 GMT -5
It's a double edged sword really....which is why I tried voting for "Others...." but for some reason I click my vote and the stupid thing says "You didn't select your vote" =P
|
|
|
Post by viruszero on Feb 16, 2008 13:37:41 GMT -5
An obsolete product does not make it degraded. It is still a piece of many assembled materials, but it is its value of purpose that is either devalued or degraded, not the product as a whole. I would say this view is contradictory. Because 1- Being obsolete does mean that it's degraded in comparison to the newer technologies. The older one cannot do what the new one could, or do it as fast. Thus the obsolete one would appear to be a degraded form of the new technology. 2- value is attributed by us as society and that changes frequently. To say value is the only thing that changes would be to place too much importance on it. But I'm not saying degraded technology is necessarily bad... It would be a societal view that degraded technology is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Degraded technology can still do so much good in the right hands. Either recycled into new parts, or given another use by donating it to those who could use it. (Providing it still works well enough to give away. Wouldn't want to give something that's broken and worthless, in which case it should just be recycled. ) As for the idea that older ones lose the purpose, wouldn't you say that is a form of degradation? As for my confusion of degradation and improvement... Are they not linked? To improve one thing is often to degrade another. EX- To get the materials used in creating a computer we have to mine for metals used for wiring, the case frame, etc... and produce the plastics, all of which constitutes some harm on something else. To get the "fresh" metal you have to dig it from the earth, then refine it, then mold it into shape... Each of those steps has it's own hazards associated with it. For example when you refine a metal how many hazardous chemicals are used or released in the process? Quite a few depending on the process needed.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Feb 16, 2008 21:43:43 GMT -5
Being obsolete does mean that it's degraded in comparison to the newer technologies. The older one cannot do what the new one could, or do it as fast. Thus the obsolete one would appear to be a degraded form of the new technology. But I'm not saying degraded technology is necessarily bad... It would be a societal view that degraded technology is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Degraded technology can still do so much good in the right hands. Either recycled into new parts, or given another use by donating it to those who could use it. (Providing it still works well enough to give away. Wouldn't want to give something that's broken and worthless, in which case it should just be recycled. ) ... How ironic. This was exactly what I said in the past few posts. To my ears however, you were just advocating the exact opposite moments ago. As for the idea that older ones lose the purpose, wouldn't you say that is a form of degradation? As for my confusion of degradation and improvement... Are they not linked? That's what I'm saying. The purpose of that product is lost, therefore it is degraded BUT to my ears, all along you have been saying that it is technology in its entirety that is degraded when it is improved. Either that, or we have some serious meaning interpretation and composition writing problems with you. Degradation and improvement part - same as above. No, when you improve a certain technolog, the old ones lose purpose and that is where only it is degraded. To restore its value, recycling and recomposition into a newer form is best. I find your example given irrelevant and redundant to the issue on degradation and improvement, so I won't comment.
|
|
|
Post by viruszero on Feb 16, 2008 23:08:59 GMT -5
Actually, no where did I ever explicity say "My view is:..." and then apply reasons for it. Up to this point I've been trying to back up someone else's statement, providing reason for it and basically playing devil's advocate.
Everything thing I've supplied so far are possible ways technology can be degraded, and again I'm not sure what the person who wrote the statement means but it's only what I can think what they would mean.
But one thing, I'm not sure how you can maintain that technology isn't degraded... because the value of it that we assign would be an intrinsic part of it... And the only value it could posess. If you remove the value you then you just have nothing... Thus it would be a degradation.
But as for the apparent switch of sides... No, I'm still saying that technology can be degraded. When you recycle something it really holds no further use in that form for you so it's still degraded. It regains value when it becomes materials that are used for something else... But not necessarily for you. And if donated then it holds no further use for you, so again degraded, even if you get a case of the warm-fuzzies for being a "nice" person.
Though, I too think there might be some miscommunications... (But don't be so quick to assume it's on my end...)
So here's how I'm using the term degraded...
Degraded for my usage is any possible reduction on any aspect of technology, not limited to technology overall. This is a very broad definition to cover as many means as possible in ways it could be degraded. (Because yet again, I don't know what the person who wrote it was thinking when they wrote the statement.)
|
|
|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Feb 17, 2008 1:07:31 GMT -5
Technology is good, but like at the same time its sort of a bad thing. I really like learning about history and such, and one thing that I've learned from it is that people back 50-100 years ago had balls. They knew about fighting wars, sticking up for they're rights, and not taking bullshit. But it kind of seems that as technology began to develop after the second world war people began to settle down, buy stuff, have kids, and get comfortable with in the walls of their homes. This kind of braught them away from reality a bit. Over time people got lazyer, and although they seem to have learned more academically they really have lost alot of common sense. I can't tell you how dumb and senseless alot of people are now adays, its rediculus. On top of that, alot of our jobs are being shipped out to India and lesser parts of Asia. Seriously, I don't even know what jobs will be left at the rate its going. Alot of my dad's friends have been laid off and are looking for jobs. So in that sense tech. can be kind of a bad thing. But on the other hand, technology is helping millions of people survive things such as cancer, tramatic stuff, and other bad things. It's also conecting us to people around the world and enableing us to gain more culteral references and such. With out the technological advances that have been made most of us probubly wouldn't even be talking to eachother right now.
|
|