Thoughts on technology

1. Science and technology are different things. People even particanters frequently merge to the two together but they are not the same thing. One does not lead to the latter. When an atomic physicist builds an atomic bomb they actually become atomic engineers. They are engaging in a separate process, with separate rules and separate processes and outcomes. Science has higher credence with the wider population so sometimes subjects are miss represented to maintain cultural funding.

1.1 Scientists and Technologists think differently about things. For a scientists the ultimate outcome is promotion of self and their perticualr beliefs. For engineer the ultimate outcome is the promotion of the changes made by the technologist them selves the self is unimportant. This is ego centric and world centric production.

2. I might contend that science is an extension a practice based upon technology. A microscope ( technology ) is invented and this leads to a number of scientific discoveries. Many scientists engage in technological development in the name of science and it is these developments which frequently 'spin off' into technology rather then the scientific results. Scientific knowledge is largely ignored (or not researched )when developing new products. I would contend the creation of new medical drugs is largely an technological process rather than a scientific one.

3. A technology is defined by the experience of it - what it affords. A table or chair is hard to define until you define what it lets you do with it you couldn't do with out it rather than what it is. For many engineers this is what might be termed 'utility'. But utility has a number of preconceptions about what is good and what is 'bad'. For example making a game or something fun is an affordance but does not sit well with most engineers vision of 'utility'.

4. The affordance drives the adoption mediated by the process of capitalism.

Today I felt very sorry for the people marching for jobs outside parliament. If they want to have some kind of influence they should have really marched outside some venture capital buildings.

Venture capital is driven by risk rather than understanding the technology and its outcomes so you get some strange results. Venture Capital has its own logics which limits what it can and cannot do. For example VC cannot stray to far outside the current technological domain.

5. All new products are the process of either technology push ( technology affordance) and market pull. I would content a successful project is actually a combination between the both. Pull is the potential market and push is why your potential competitors havn't met that need yet.

6. Market need is a myth. Who sat round in the 1820's saying if only we could get from London to Manchester in 3 hours life would be so much better? Needs are only discovered/perceived by creating methods to meet those needs. This what we think of as market need is simply known technological affordance (If I can get from London to Manchester in 3 hour how could I use that). When it looks like you are assessing market 'needs' then you are only applying knowledge of current known solutions rather than being open ended about speculating entirely new ones. It is very difficult to frame a question where a true need is identified, and if it was done generally then its moderatly unlikely that the technologist in question will be able to innovate sufficiently to meet that need.

7. All technology is in fact driven by appropriation. Appropriation is process of users seeing affordances which have not been perceived of by the original creators. Phoning your self up to leave a message as a reminder is example of appropriation. In fact appropriation drives all new technologies. Only does meeting a need ( for filling a new affordance) leading to substantive innovation but this assumes the technology creator knows both the aforndance and the likely appropriation - which can happen but is rare.

8. Appropriation also cultural -in modern society we use thing to meet social needs most of our vital needs are already catered for. So for example people might consider solar panels on their roofs but not insulation in their buildings. The movie and digital media are pushing them selves towards extinction due to digital copyright problems. The obvious solution would be to demand analogue storage devices (DVDs) which would inheriantly introduce noise into the picture and so make copying difficult. But they cannot due to the view of digital media being 'the future'.

9. Appropriation can occur for non discursive reasons. SUV/4x4 met a non discursive need.

10. The experience of technology is fundamental to our relationship to it and the every day.

11. Some technologies are about what to think with and some are about what to think of.