Can An Individual Still Resist The Spread of Technology? (chicagotribune.com)

schwit1 shares a column from the Chicago Tribune: When cellphones first appeared, they gave people one more means of communication, which they could accept or reject. But before long, most of us began to feel naked and panicky anytime we left home without one. To do without a cellphone -- and soon, if not already, a smartphone -- means estranging oneself from normal society. We went from "you can have a portable communication device" to "you must have a portable communication device" practically overnight... Today most people are expected to be instantly reachable at all times. These devices have gone from servants to masters...

Few of us would be willing to give up modern shelter, food, clothing, medicine, entertainment or transportation. Most of us would say the trade-offs are more than worth it. But they happen whether they are worth it or not, and the individual has little power to resist. Technological innovation is a one-way street. Once you enter it, you are obligated to proceed, even if it leads someplace you would not have chosen to go.
The column argues "the iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right," citing this passage from the 1996 manifesto of the anti-technology terrorist. "Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it."

Comments

Not really true

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really true. I can't think of anything I can do with my phone that I can't do otherwise. While it's easy to pay bills with an app, I can still go into my bank or mail a cheque. I can still use a camera, even a film camera if I want to. I can still mail a letter rather than use email.

Re:Not really true

[BitterOak]

Remember when there used to be payphones all over the place, so if you had an emergency or ran out of gas or something, you could call for help? Good luck finding one of those now. And when cab companies are put out of business by Uber, good luck getting transportation anywhere without a cellphone. It won't be long before you won't be able to pay bills by mailing a check and some countries have already gone cashless, and my prediction is that in less than 20 years if not sooner, America will be cashless as well, and smartphone apps will have completely replaced debit and credit cards. Up to now, I've resisted getting a smartphone, but it's getting harder and harder all the time. Meeting friends at a restaurant is getting to be a problem. It used to be you'd decide in advance where and when you'd meet. Nowadays, they expect you to be reachable all the time, so they can make their decision at the very last minute. It's really hard to have a social life today without a smartphone.

Re:Not really true

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

The Taxi companies deserve to die. Horrible response. Drivers that pretend to not understand English so they can lengthen your route. No accountability for bad drivers. High prices, low availability.

Fuck them.

If I have an emergency or run out of gas, the cell phone is far more convenient. Why would I stand on a dark corner talking on a payphone, all ripe for armed robbery?

The Unabomber was a fucking psychotic luddite. Live without the benefits of technology if you choose. Just don't bitch when everyone else doesn't stay in the 1990s with you.

Re:Not really true

[mschwanke97402]

Not really true. I can't think of anything I can do with my phone that I can't do otherwise. While it's easy to pay bills with an app, I can still go into my bank or mail a cheque. I can still use a camera, even a film camera if I want to. I can still mail a letter rather than use email.

You say you can quit any time you want, is that it?

Re:Not really true

[Harlequin80]

Why resist? Nothing makes you answer the phone. Nothing makes you read your email or messages.

But at the same time you have camera and internet and other tools at your disposal at all times.

As for mailing a cheque most countries other than the US have pretty much abandonned those anyway.

Re: Not really true

[Anonymous Coward]

With respect to the Unabomber, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

Re:Not really true

[Mashiki]

Sounds like a local problem to me. Every taxi company I've run across, especially in small cities have drivers that are fluent english speakers.

I still see payphones all over the place, hell there's still one a block from where I used to live. Again seems to me you've got a local problem.

Re:Not really true

[DaHat]

Sounds like a local problem to me. Every taxi company I've run across, especially in small cities have drivers that are fluent english speakers.

Lucky you. On a previous trip to California, I landed at SFO and took a taxi down to SV. The driver noted the address I wanted to go to was out of the local zone so would be hit with a higher rate after we left the local ring. I agreed given I wasn't going to be paying for the ride in the end.

Along the drive, I heard his phone announce "you have left the geo-fenced area" (or something to that effect), at which point he pressed a couple of buttons on the fare meter to bump the rate. This was also during a window when he appeared to begin driving some more lengthy routes to my destination. I was of course following the route on my phone and was puzzles the entire was as to his choice of routes.

Upon reaching my destination, he pulled out his personal (and cracked) iPhone to do the math as to the actual fare (1.5x the fare on the meter), then slide my card through the attached Stripe reader... not the Android device with Flywheel app sitting on the dashboard, nor the credit card reader sitting in front of me (behind the passenger seat) provided by the taxi company. I was tired and agreed, again, I wasn't paying in the end.

Upon checking out the next morning, I asked the desk agent what a taxi ride from SFO should run... she gave a range which was ~50% less than what I had paid.

I rode in an Uber (my second, the first was to my destination that morning) on my ride back to the airport... it cost 1/4th what the taxi did.

My mother was at a company business event and later noted that the taxi had charged her card $5 more than what was on her receipt... some checking showed that multiple people from her group alone had similar billing issues... all because the taxi drivers figured some big company wouldn't know/mind being overcharged slightly.

No... f-taxis. I will never ride in an american taxi again. For all of their problems, Lyft and Uber provide a degree of transparency that

I still see payphones all over the place, hell there's still one a block from where I used to live. Again seems to me you've got a local problem.

Care to take some local photos... perhaps with a copy of the local news paper for proof? Last month I put 4000 miles on the my vehicle for a road trip that traversed 7 states (only ~50% of the road was re-driven on the way back). Know how many pay phones I saw along the way? The same # as the # of USB-C cables/chargers I found at various truck stops/gas stations/etc stores along the way... an grand total of zero.

Re:Not really true

[Tom]

No... f-taxis. I will never ride in an american taxi again. For all of their problems, Lyft and Uber provide a degree of transparency that

But maybe the problem isn't with taxis, but the way they are run in the USA? Here in central Europe, taxis are incredibly reliable, and as a passenger your list of rights is longer than for plane travel. They also charge by the meter, exactly. In all my life, I've never had a taxi driver run any funny games.

Re:Not really true

[thegarbz]

Last month I put 4000 miles on the my vehicle for a road trip that traversed 7 states (only ~50% of the road was re-driven on the way back). Know how many pay phones I saw along the way?

As a matter of interest as there still emergency phones in the USA? I have seen various approaches to pay phones in different countries, from leaving them in place, to upgrading to take modern payment system, to riping out, and even to upgrade them with WiFi hotspots. But one thing that remained regardless of what happened to payphones was emergency phones on the highways.

Re:Not really true

[nanoflower]

So I need to have a cell phone on the off chance that I come upon an accident and no one there has a cell phone so I am the only that can save them. I am a super hero!! Thank you for pointing this out.

My only kryptonite is my tendency to misplace things so I might not be able to find my cell phone before it's time to leave. Oh, and my tendency to forget small things like remembering to recharge the cell phone so it will work when I come upon an accident and have my chance to be a hero.

Re:Not really true

[Rande]

I had one do that to me in Eindhoven. Drove all over the place to increase the fare when I admitted I'd not been there before.

Re:Not really true

[JonnyCalcutta]

Here in Glasgow, Scotland Uber is regulated in exactly the same way as taxis and drivers have to be licensed in exactly the same way as taxi drivers. By a strange coincidence, Uber is exactly the same price as a taxi.

Re:Not really true

[Zero__Kelvin]

Remember when you used to be able to just shoot a squirrel in your yard and cook it for dinner? Now you are stuck buying steak at a grocery store or having someone bringing food to your front door, and a lot of times it's already cooked. Damn this new fangled technology. I so long for the days when we weren't dependant upon it!

Re:Not really true

[skam240]

"I had a bad experience with a taxi driver so all taxi drivers are bad!"

Plenty of bad experiences are had by people using Uber. It's great you have a singular story to demonize someone but that's all it is.

Re:Not really true

[skam240]

It's the same in America but like a people everywhere there are those who want to turn a singular negative experience with themselves nailed to a cross.

Re:Not really true

[KozmoStevnNaut]

You can get a smartphone without necessarily getting sucked into wasting your time or money on frivolous nonsense. A smartphone is a powerful tool when used properly. You don't have to join the gadget race, just because you buy a smartphone, you don't even have to install any apps or use it for anything but the bare essentials (ie. stuff you can't do without a phone, or which are extremely cumbersome without a phone).

Being able to look up basic information from a handheld device is extremely handy, for instance to check on the status on your flight, or look up the address of that restaurant you remember, but can't quite place on a map.

Re:Not really true

[houghi]

Remember when there used to be payphones all over the place, so if you had an emergency or ran out of gas or something, you could call for help?

I nremeber that and also the fact that you needed change and the number and that they almost never worked and that you could aks people for help.

And when cab companies are put out of business by Uber, good luck getting transportation anywhere without a cellphone.

Why would they go out of business? I am sure that at busy places there will still be some sort of taxi-service. e.g. on airports. Supply and demand. Also: Uber and Lyft ARE taxi-services.

It won't be long before you won't be able to pay bills by mailing a check

And nothing of value was lost. I live in a country where they do not exist anymore. So how does this work?
1) You can do it via PC, tablet or app on your smartphone
2) You do it via phone line Cumbersome, but not impossible.
3) You give a standard paper to the bank who will then do the transfer. This is almost like a checque, but you give it to the bank directly and not to the other person. As all banking is standard, I can do payments all over Europe, both to individuals and to companies.
Most companies will attach such a paper when they send you a bill, although they prefer automatic payment and often will give you a reduction if you do it that way.
Many people use this method
3) You go to the bank and use the PC there. They are open 24/7
4) You go to the teller and handle stuff there.

Nowadays, they expect you to be reachable all the time, so they can make their decision at the very last minute

I email my friends. I have a wonderful social life and most of it has nothing to do with a smartphone. We SMS, if at all. Or we call, like, on a phone. But I understand that peer-pressure is a real thing and not everybody is able to resist it.
One friend of mine was told that he either turned off his phone when we where out, or not come along.
To me not having a smart phone would be pretty easy. So why do I have one? When my parents where still alive, they lived in another country and it was cheaper to call them using a VoiP app. They are both dead now, but I still have it. Otherwise? No real reason. Yes I do have my bank app, but could eqasily do that from home. I have WatsApp with 5 people on it. I have contact with 1 and that could be done over Email and SMS. My phone is off when I work and when I go out.

Re:Not really true

[TheRaven64]

It probably depends on where in China. I was in Xi'an and there were a lot of taxis there. They mostly spoke little or no English and I speak approximately no Mandarin, but it was still possible to haggle via Google Translate. They seemed to enjoy the haggling a lot, so I'd do a moderate amount, but when their opening offer for a taxi ride to the airport that's about an hour's drive away works out at about $30, there would be little incentive for me to try hard even if I were the one paying. Oh, and they all took cash.

Re:Not really true

[spire3661]

The problem is you cant buy a smartphone that respects the user and offers built-in, seamless, fully factory supported rooting.

Re:Not really true

[cmseagle]

Here in Bristol, England Uber drivers have to have the same Private Hire license that you'd need if you were driving a town car for a charter company, and in my experience their fares are ~20-25% less than the local cabs.

It'd be interesting to see how Uber's rates compare to local taxis when they're regulated exactly like taxis (most restrictive), like unliveried private hire cars (less restrictive), and when totally unregulated.

Re:Not really true

[Ol Olsoc]

Why would I stand on a dark corner talking on a payphone, all ripe for armed robbery?

Oh sheesh, you are kinda what we are warned against. Once upon a time, I would take off for an entire day without anyone knowing where I was. Now my wife and others expect to contact me immediately whenever and wherever I am. They freak if they cannot. And people shit themselves when that last signal strength bar goes away. This is the problem - addiction to the little things.

I like my smartphones. They are technology that is simply amazing. I use many of their features. But I can and do turn mine off when I don't feel like being bothered. I do any and all social media on a desktop, and walk around the world. But I'm not addicted to the smartphone like many people are. I think this is the point, and the unabomber positive cite simply alienates the people who could use the most help with their addiction.

The Unabomber was a fucking psychotic luddite. Live without the benefits of technology if you choose. Just don't bitch when everyone else doesn't stay in the 1990s with you.

Well, it is not a digital situation. There are times when the latest technology is just tremendous. There are other times that spending one's time on social media while at the Grand Canyon indicates that there is a problem.

Re:Not really true

[spacepimp]

AC you should tone down your hostility and trolling.

People with our without cell phones are just as likely to step over your dying body lying on the pavement. Anecdotal but true:

Las Vegas outside the Bellagio I'm walking and stop to watch the fountains. Next to me an older (mid to late 60s it looked like) man drops to the ground and lies there not making a sound. Three people he was with stand there staring and not helping. I ask if anyone knows him.If anyone is with him etc. Finally a girl fesses up, but wouldn't answer questions on if he had a history of stroke or heart attack (probably hired for the weekend or some side action). I check for breathing and opened up his shirt collar. and a few buttons revealing several incisions around the heart and along the arteries on his neck.

At this point people are literally stepping over him because he is blocking the sidewalk. I asked for anyone to please call 911 to get help there because his breathing was very faint and he couldn't speak or answer questions. Guess how many people were willing to call 911, zero... I dug through my bag and found my phone booted it up and made the call wasting the time it took to boot the phone (which at that point was a long time) Finally help arrived handed me some syringes to inject him with and that is when I stepped back not being a Dr. They took it from there.

Your simplistic anger and logic here is bullshit. Thousands of people on that sidewalk could give shit if the man lived or died. That is a fact. Most of the world is uncaring if able to get away with it. So before you call someone a cold uncaring luddite who should join your self congratulatory "community" you should come to grip with reality. People will step over your dying body if they can get away with it. Hoping someone else puts forth the effort.

Re:Not really true

[cayenne8]

Would you recommend carrying a firearm for the same reasons?

Actually....yes!!

:)

Re:Not really true

[kackle]

1) Cost. $600 a year is $1000 pre-tax, which is $10,000 per decade (or a cheap, new car).

2) Cancer. Disagree if you are ignorant to the superposition principle and how it can affect your DNA.

3) Theft. Some people have gotten killed over them.

4) Loss. Some don't need another thing to worry about.

5) Effort. Did I charge its battery? Did I pay my bill this month? Was the bill correct? Did someone steal my information? Did I go beyond my data plan? Have the rates gone up again?

6) Damage. It's easily broken if just dropped.

7) Tracking. Many are tracking its location and use.

8) Need. It doesn't fit my life in any way, but I guess I'll endure the above because everyone else believes I should have one for my tiny commute.

Re:Not really true

[grep -v '.*' *]

Old joke (obviously):

A traveling salesman went to an isolated farmhouse to sell some stuff. The farmer refused, but invited the man in for supper. During dinner, the phone rang. And Rang. And RANG. After a while, the salesman said, "Sir, aren't you going to answer that?" To which the farmer replied, "Son, I put that phone in for MY convenience, not theirs."

Of course you can

[HBI]

I actually don't use my cellphone much. It's all voice calls or SMS. Any use as a web browser is a last resort and perhaps twice weekly. The apps are jokes and I usually don't bother even opening any of them on the average week. I spent 20 years on call. I leave my cell phone hooked up to the charger before 8pm every night and I go upstairs. If it rings or buzzes, tough shit. If you want me, you have to know my wife's number, or my private e-mail address which few have.

In regards internet usage, I stop here every once in a while. I do pay attention to the facebook crowd, mostly family. I don't use Twitter (anti-free speech issue there, as well as not seeing any value added in using it). I read my fill of 'news' of different stripe and play a FPS or two, write some code, or read books, admittedly with a Kindle, but that's only because the wife was giving me agita about the dead tree type taking up too much room in the house.

I also don't watch TV. Full stop. Haven't since I was 12. I have a media server but it's mostly for the wife and kids. I'll watch South Park or Archer once in a while, but off the server, and therefore downloaded. I never use Netflix or any other streaming service, either.

If you told me tomorrow all the computers were going away, i'd be ok as long as I could get dead tree books. I'd regret it because then I couldn't even consider coding stuff. Otherwise, who cares. The internet is way overrated.

Re:Of course you can

[HBI]

Of course I am. I'm making the point that if it were all over, that all the fiber was cut and we'd never have an internet again, it'd be ok. I'm not going to have "I MISS /." carved on my headstone.

Re:Of course you can

[coastwalker]

Ditto, though I have a phone, not a smartphone and I watch University lectures on YouTube for entertainment. Social media is a waste of time as youngsters who might be interesting to interact with tend to go "private" to grown-ups so it becomes anti-social media. The rest of it is either baby pictures or people sharing fake news hate speech. So I don't bother with social media much any more. Smartphones are overated so long as you have net access through a laptop, tablet or desktop.

Re:Of course you can

[HBI]

The funny part is that I got a smartphone so I could take pictures of whiteboards. True story. I would just get a camera in another age, which would be a camera with a much better lens, incidentally.

Re:Of course you can

[Anonymous Coward]

> I also don't watch TV. Full stop. .... I'll watch South Park or Archer once in a while

So, you watch TV.

Also, obligatory Onion link.

Re:Of course you can

[jenningsthecat]

I'm not going to have "I MISS /." carved on my headstone.

If you'll give me the name of the cemetery where you plan to be buried, and the plot number, I'll be happy to have that taken care of for you... ;-)

wtf?

[gravewax]

excuse my ignorance. But what the fuck does the IPhone X have that proves the Unabomber right? if anything it is one of those very minor upgrades that proves you don't need it this time around.

Re:wtf?

[mschwanke97402]

Go read the article. It wasn’t about the iPhone X per se.

Re:wtf?

[mschwanke97402]

Read now, article is fucking pathetic, So yes the summary was bad, but the article basically is waffle that says nothing.

You are probably right.

No

[rsilvergun]

not in any meaningful way. Individuals can't 'resist' any broad societal change on their own.

That said, the Unibomber's manifesto is just plain silly. The problem isn't dependence. It's tech being used to make our lives worse instead of better, usually at the behest of the ruling class. It's everything from tracking cookies that know exactly how much extra you'll pay for that bag of cat food or that box of diapers to armed autonomous drones. That's the part that's worth resisting. Not some nebulous assault on an idealized way of life pulled from something Thoreau wrote but systemic oppression of the sort that leads to the next 1000 year dark ages. And no, you can't resist that as individuals. It requires a concerted effort on the part of the working class. Unions, Democracy and powerful institutions that are carefully and continuously monitored.

Re:No

[Bongo]

There are broadly speaking three stages of values -- premodern, modern, and post-post-modern.
Premodern is the old empires, kings, absolute authority, most large religions, etc. It sounds archaic but it forcefully united what would otherwise be lots of fiefdoms and warlords. And the authoritarian way, was the way the world was run for several thousand years.
The modernity appeared, due a a whole bunch of circumstances, and power was distributed, and what I guess makes a true modern nation state is the quality and honesty of its institutions.
Now your terrorist type has basically a preference for warlordism, whether because they don't like the government, or the government is too corrupt, but where a lot of people would be like, whatever, let's just get on with life, the "direct action" type wants to fight someone. And if the world ever collapsed back to pre-modern in a Mad Max kinda way, these people are actually the ones who would, for better or worse, be forcefully trying to reestablish power structures.
And I think you are right, the problem is not technology itself -- the problems, when they appear, are in the social power structures.
Are the nation's institutions relatively free of corruption? The global corruption index is probably way more important than whether a nation has this or that other development metric.
Technology itself is just extending our biology. We all depend on having bodies, food, water, and shelter. We all need our mitochondria. We all depend on the food system. We all depend on lots of stuff (and which many take for granted). I mean, there was the guy who tried to make his own toaster from scratch and it took him a year and it barely worked once. We all depend on information.
And yeah, tech can be used for "evil" ie. for destroying the social systems built so far, either by corrupting it from the top, or, as people often forget, by corrupting it from the bottom, with "people action" and other things which can be like a cancer. And let's not get started on post-modern nihilism.
But fortunately, whilst tech brings both good and bad, it tends to bring in a slight net good.
The internet can be used by corps and governments to spy on people and oppress dissent, as well as allowing all the terror nutters to find each other, but it also seems to be spreading good developments faster, like women's rights in developing countries, and new ideas for food production.
But I also assume the future cannot be predicted, so I do hope the good possibilities will continue to outweigh the bad, but again, the spread of ideas may bring all sorts of unexpected developments.

Luddite here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have a cell phone. The ability to make calls from remote locations was a win for me. However it's an old flip phone, and when turned off, it's off. Convinced of that because I wouldn't get three months between charges otherwise.
What amazes me is how the sheepies are prepared to put up with shit technology, not 'technology' as such. I mean, having the charge the damn thing every day, and not actually being able to use them for their advertised purpose (making phone calls if you couldn't work that out) when out of town AND the damn things are tracking devices as well. Now THAT'S tragic.

No mobile != resisting technology

[Roger W Moore]

I don't have a mobile because, at least in Canada, they are ridiculously expensive and I haven't yet found a use for one that is worth the cost of owning it. However, I'd hardly say that I'm resisting technology or estranging myself from normal society, well, at least more than anyone else posting on Slashdot.

Re:No mobile != resisting technology

[complete loony]

I don't have a phone either, and I have noticed a number of online services are starting to assume that you have one.

I couldn't sign up for online access to my bank's services without a phone, because they want to send me an SMS verification code from time to time.

Use popular services from google or facebook, and they will periodically nag you to enable what they call 2-factor, which again involves an SMS code. Both services fail to provide a "quit annoying me" button.

Problem is the question.

[gurps_npc]

1) You personally not using technology is NOT resisting the spread of it. It still spreads. You can't resist the spread of technology. Even if you don't use it other people will, and this spreads it.

2) You can use the technology while refusing the stupid abuses. For example, despite the moronic statement, in the article you can have a phone and not answer it. I would even go so far as to call people that insist on answering it fools. All cell phones have answering machines and if it is important, they text. I would even go so far as to say that slowly, over time, people that are stupid enough to answer the phone at the wrong time will get themselves killed (car accidents for example).

3) The problem is not even the spread of technology, nor the social change that it brings. Certain technology makes certain abuses less likely and certain abuses more likely. The spread of machinery helped eliminate slavery (by reducing the need for low skilled work). The spread of the internet made cyber-bullying far more common. But this changes. Over time, new technology replaces the old ones and often solves the old problems (while creating new ones.) In other words, having new tech DOES solve the problems of old tech. If you resist it long enough, it goes away. Or better yet, YOU can solve the problem.

For example, perhaps someone will find a way to make cellphones with real secrecy. Maybe it will be TOR based, who knows. But it is totally possible if enough people demand it.

Stop crying about the problem and solve it.

Re:Problem is the question.

[TheRaven64]

All cell phones have answering machines

I turned off my voicemail a few years ago. It combines the worst aspects of email and telephones: it's not instant and it's not easily searchable. If you call me and I don't answer, then it means that I'm not paying attention to my phone. The primary purpose of old answering machines was to let you know that you'd missed a call and who it was from, but I get that information far more concisely from the call log on my phone now.

User Controlled Technology vs. Company.

[Zombie Ryushu]

I think that the question is being answered in the wrong way. The technology itself isn't bad, its resisting the bad uses.

I and my Spouse have Android Phones. They Communicate to our Home Domain Controllers. Our Home Domain Controllers run an Application called Spectrum 2. The Spectrum 2 Server operates behind a NAT firewall, and uses an internal Account Database of registered Social Media Accounts (exccluding Facebook for security, stalking, and abuse/harrassment reasons). The Mobile devices use Spectrum 2 to translate the various proprietary libpurple compliant messages into XMPP.

The Mobile Android devices running LineageOS on the Phones see all contacts and can communicate transparently with said media services. It stays encrypted via XMPP and the Domain Controller translates it into AIM, Yahoo, Skype, Discord, so on and so fourth.

On an unfamiliar Wifi Network? We have IPSec for that.
More people need to apply this approach.

Re:User Controlled Technology vs. Company.

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that if someone commercialized this and sold it to non-technical people, the various companies running those apps would take steps to break it. Just like they did the last time someone tried to build a commercial, multi-network chat client.

The real problem is the unwillingness to say no. Recruiter emails me, asks for a Skype chat. I can either install Skype, make an account and chat about that job I want, or I can tell them I don't have Skype and the reasons why I don't want to install it or make an account and ask if they can use something else... And that something else is going to have to be an unpopular open source system that respects my privacy, or what is the point, so chances are they won't have it and now I'm asking them to install software and make an account...

It reminds me of the early days of mobile phones, when you couldn't call other networks. As I recall we didn't have unrestricted, low cost cross-network messaging until it was demanded by regulators with the threat of legislation to back them up.

Alfred Whitehead

[shayd2]

It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.

utility and dependency

[Tom]

There's a fine line between something that's just really useful and something that you depend upon.

The smartphone has become such an essential part of everyday life, that whenever I leave the house and forget mine, I very much notice it. But - it rarely actually stops me from doing anything. It's just an unusual feeling because it became a habit. Now habits might be hard to break, but they are not yet dependencies.

I can imagine that teenagers who grow up without ever having lived without a smartphone depend more strongly on it. And some individuals certainly develop a dependency on the level of addiction. And yes, more and more of the world around us simply assumes that you have a smartphone. There is a lot of truth to it. But the real world is rarely as black and white as manifestos make it.

Re: News for nerds? Seriously?!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this isn't a millennial view. This shows how far Slashdot has fallen. I remember Slashdot at its best, around 2000, and this is awful in comparison. There are still a few reasons to visit this site, even though the site sucks now. And yes, the management and editors are to blame for it.

This seems like an anti-tech story. Although there have always been concerns here about privacy and censorship, there was still an appreciation fow new technology. There were a lot more articles of interest to nerds instead of mainstream news. Are nerds really interested in multiple articles within a few hours of each other about how sites like Google and Facebook allowed advertisers to target racists? Such things are commonplace on Slashdot now, and that's why many nerds have left. Here are things Slashdot did have in the past:

1) Lots of articles about open source and Linux, especially when new versions of widely used software were released. Slashdot was committed enough to open source that they released the source to this site and hosted it on Sourceforge. Sadly, that code hasn't been updated in almost a decade, though it has been forked. Slashdot also posted a lot more content that would be of interest to programmers and developers.

2) More general tech articles about the releases of new hardware and closed source software.

3) A few posts about scientific advances, many of which were in the science section rather than on the front page.

4) Your rights online did raise concerns about piracy, TSA, surveillance, censorship, the ability to film the police, and privacy. However, there were a lot of articles about things like DeCSS, software patents, and often how they affected open source software.

5) Lots of articles about hobbyist DIY projects. If someone completed a cool software or electronics project, they'd create a webpage showing how they did it, and would submit it here. These were very cool because readers could duplicate the projects or even improve upon them. I really liked seeing how creative people were and the ideas they came up with.

6) There were a lot more articles about topics of interest to nerds like Star Trek, Star Wars, comic books, and stuff like that. They didn't really involve tech, but they appealed to nerds and we're of interest to nerds like Rob Mala who ran this site.

7) Ask Slashdot questions were often very useful because this site had a lot of very intelligent and experienced people who could answer challenging tech questions.

8) Slashdot posted lots of articles about video games and new releases. There were also articles about retro gaming.

9) There was a lot of user-submitted content including book reviews, features (editorials written by users), and questions submitted by Slashdot readers for intervews with prominent people. There are occasionally interviews still, but these were much more frequent in the past.

10) Malda and some of the other editors hosted what was effectively a podcast, long before that term was coined. It was called Geeks in Space.

11) Jon Katz was basically Slashdot's paid troll. He wrote editorials and almost always got flamed for them. He lost his job due to cutting costs a bit and wasn't replaced.

Many of these things are long gone. Slashdot wasn't a mainstream tech news site or a place for paranoid lunatics. It was a news site for nerds, and many of the topics that appealed directly to nerds are long gone. Even the focus on open source appealed to nerds because having access to the source allowed them to tinker with the code and do some really interesting things. Slashdot appealed to nerds and hobbyists, and most of that content is long gone. If the editors want the nerds to come back, they should post more of that content or go out and look for it online. Solicit that type of content, along with features and book reviews. Cut out most of the articles designed to generate political discussion, because we don't need several articles within the span of a day or two that are effectively about the same thing.

Bring back news for nerds!

Re:Don't have a cell phone and don't want one

[JonnyCalcutta]

I'm not defending the parent or luddite-ism, but surely you must realise that what you are talking about is a serious edge case? Most people do not have any professional need to be on call (even when they are at work, never mind at home).

Way back in the old days if someone went on holiday they were gone for two weeks. If some issue came up, it just had to wait until they were back because there was simply no option. Nowadays some colleague will be sending a text within 5 minutes ("we can't find the staples", "do you remember where I put the documents for client x", "how do you change the sugar in the Mr Coffee machine"). That does not seem like a net gain to me.

Yes Who Cares!

[oldgraybeard]

I do not have a Facebook account, Twitter account, Instagram account.
I don't see a need or use for them. And I am a contract computer programmer. i also write XCode/Swift apple stuff.
I create technology, but do not use much of it.
Tech is only important if you make it so!

Of course

[jandersen]

There are certain tecnologies that are so compelling that it would be absurd to avoid them - the use of fire, cooking, clothes, knives etc, but the mobile phone doesn't even come close. I think the people who keep coming up with this sort of hype, have something they want to sell, and I have no confidence in what they have to tell us.

The problem for Anonymous cowards

[Chrisq]

When you go in real life and tell someone that they are gay twats for liking Windows 10 the amusement ends rather quickly

All in moderation

[KozmoStevnNaut]

You can use technology without letting it control you. Exercise moderation, don't get sucked into BS social media timewasters, don't join the race to have the newest, fanciest toy. A 2 year old phone is still perfectly capable of doing all the things you need it to do, such as calls, messaging, basic navigation, using a taxi app and so on.

Re:All in moderation

[KozmoStevnNaut]

False equivalency. Smartphones are nowhere near as addictive as heroin, they do not cause physical addiction and they do not have physical (sometimes fatal) withdrawal symptoms.

Stop being facetious.

Central Europe ???

[gDLL]

Lol you must be joking, here in central europe also the taxi drivers will scam you in 5 different ways. Come on down here to the south and test !

Resist spread of surveillance by the Big Brethren

[codeButcher]

This is my longish anecdote about Whatsapp.

I have a 6 year old Android phone. Due to a period on a tight budget (self-employed), I did not upgrade the device to the newest and shiniest. It still does all the things I want (even web browsing and e-mail), so I figured no need. Then I locked the screen with a PIN that I memorized incorrectly. Did a factory reset to clear that.

While I kept the software fairly up to date before the reset, the OS was not updated. After the reset, all those incremental updates were not available any more and I could not even access the Google Play store. I could get some apps from F-Droid or APKs directly from the developers (I have simple needs).

So this year I entered the employee market again, an lo and behold, already 2 clients wanted to add my number to their special project Whatsapp group. On a device and connectivity that I pay for out of my own pocket, that I have no contractual obligation to possess or to provide the number for to them. So imagine the looks and snide remarks I got when telling them: I don't want to install Whatsapp, and even if I wanted to, I am unable to install it on my device.

To reiterate some problems I have with this application:
* Owned by Facebook
* Uploads address book to their servers to do whatever with
* Users (and their contacts) being commoditized
* Closed garden ecosystem
* What if I prefer Telegram/Yabber/xxx? No interoperability
* No separation between social, work, and other domains

So far, quite happy to steer away from this particular "technology" and similar, even at the cost of some head-bumping with employers.

Typical pseudo-intellectual noodling

[Applehu Akbar]

From the linked column, claiming that Kaczynski was right because:
"He cites the automobile, which offered every person the freedom to travel farther and faster than before. But as cars became more numerous, they became a necessity, requiring great expense, bigger roads and more regulations. Cities were designed for the convenience of drivers, not pedestrians. For most people, driving is no longer optional."

Like every other technology, the automobile caught on as it became apparent that it was not just slightly better than the old way of doing things, but much better (The "Peter Drucker principle"). This is the lock-in claimed by the column, rather than some magic power that tech has to enslave us.

Suppose that when the automobile was introduced we had made a conscious decision as a society to reject it? We might then have developed railroading to some Japan-like ultimate limit, with every American living in high-rise apartments in cities of 40 million, and nothing in the countryside but large-scale farming and mass train travel to National Parks. Kaczynski would have complained just as much about having to live in a "regimented" society of this kind, "where we never have intimate contact with nature."

At any given time we live the way we want to live, given the tools available.

the real question:

[Anonymous Coward]

what is normal society?

I mean if you are trying to live like a celebrity and think that that is a normal lifestyle then sure you wont be able to live with out technology.

If you enjoy a quiet life with a small trusted group of friends then no you don't, just like you dont need the technology to meet new people either. Most social groups have routine times in which they meet to conduct their activities as human being are quite often creatures of habit. for example: fitness classes, sporting events, lectures, classes, etc. these things happen on a regular basis.

The larger problem is that people really need to re-evaluate their "needs" and wants.

Do you really need a taxi? last time i checked, most metropolitan areas had a form of transit system, and there are generally buses that will get you between the different cities/towns etc.

as far as people being expected to be reachable at all points in time, well simply it is up to an individual to manage those expectations. I make sure that people know well in advance that i am not reachable at all points in time and that there really is no emergency that requires me to be on call 24/7. seriously, no reason at all, and once people start to get it then they will either respect your wishes or not talk to you any more but do you really need those people to be talking to you. People who expect you to be available 100% of the time 24/7 have an air of desperation and co-dependency about them, they are the ones that require constant hand-holding and encouragement to even do the simplest of things. they are the ones who have rejected a normal society, one where people are individuals working together to achieve a greater good. they are the narcissists who expect the world to be all about them, and truthfully they are the ones who have bought what was sold to them by people willing to control them. After-all once you take away the individualism and reinstall it with codependency then those people will always be dependent on the ruling class.

Yes people can resist technology

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I used to live in a small town in my state. I moved to the largest metro area over 20 years ago. I had a friend in my hometown that I have completely lost touch with him because he doesn't have any phone at all. I would be shocked if he had a cell phone. He is the cheapest person I've ever seen in my life. He had a good job that paid him well in the local community, but he just refused to pay monthly charges for a phone so he never had one. He had no internet either. I used to send him email, but his work got picky about employees sending and receiving personal email, so that option went away. My only way to contact him became to visit him whenever I was in town and hope he was home, but the last time I tried that he wasn't home and it just became more hassle than it was worth as he didn't live particularly close to my relatives. I would guess maybe I last saw him 17 years ago. If his mother needed to talk to him she either had to call him at work or call his apartment complex's business office and ask them to send somebody down to his apartment and bring him to their phone so she could talk to him. It was a small complex, so amazingly they were willing to do it. All he did was live like a miser and save every extra dime he got. He never married and has no kids so I guess when he dies some distant cousin is going to inherit his money. He probably can never get a date if he even wanted to. Can you imagine telling a woman that you don't have any phone or personal email at all because you're too cheap to pay for it? Yeah, that's going to go over well. The town he lives in isn't that small where he can do that and get away with it.

"Instantly reachable" is a psychological problem

[gweihir]

Just set your phone to "vibrate" or "silent" and only accept calls when you like. If it is important, people will text or leave a message. From my experience, this does cause no problems. And if you want some hours of complete peace, leave your phone at home.