skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Today I saw another one of those videos created by magazines in anticipation of the Apple tablet, this one by Mag+ and featuring some pretty sleek graphic interfaces. The video is meant in one way as an ad, but mostly it is speculative of the possible uses of a tablet platform and showcases the potential great features that definitely induce a wow factor. I gotta say, this reminded me right away of Arthur Clarke's Space Odyssey and how a similar tablet-like gadget was the way that all media had evolved im that specific future. As startling as it always is to notice how exact Clarke's predictions on technology are, this one video by Mag+ really brings up the magic of the novel and it seems this may really be our future starting from the next year. So here is how I think the future will play and how it willchange us.
In early 2010, possibly around the beginning February, Apple is set to finally unveil its tablet, the long-waited mythical gadget, a successor to the failed Norron, and a logical continuation of the iPhone popularity. Even though everything about the Tablet is officially a rumour (even its name, with some saying it will be iBook and me leaning more in the direction of the unexpected iTab) and even though Apple doesn't even confir
it exists as a project, people are well used by now to the way they handlw major announces, and how somethong that's a rumour till the last moment becomes reality only in a snap and with some fanfares courtesy of Steve Jobs of course. Market predictions forr the device are alredy quite optimistic, and it seems more and more people will start reading books on it, even though the Kindlw has epaper. I personally will do moat of my readings, if not all, on it, because I already am more than pleased and happy with my iPhone.
But the question of how would that influenc that future of multitouch, already championed by Apple as anybody who had uses the iPhone can confirm, is something that trully raises the enormous scope and pertinence of the Tablet. Touch on phones and computers really feels more natural than anything else existing right now, and greasy fingers are of no problem since they can always be cleanex, not to forget that sweeping the screen with your fingers every time you us it keeps it clean from dust.
In the last few weeks, ever since the saga of Jenson Button's future has been resolved, one name was constantly circulated in the world of Formula, and that was the name of former 7 time world champion Michael Schumacher and his possible coming out of retirement. Earlier in the year, as we all know, Schumacher was bound to replace severely injured Massa behind the Ferrari, the team he once pledged to support forever, but then a neck injury was the maybe necessary brake for his return and gave him some time to reconsider his choices. Lately, the medias were coming up daily shocking and unbelievable stories about the possible contract between the German megastar and German based team, Mercedes Grand Prix, who took the charge from last year's double champions Brawn GP. And of course, as is usually the case with those stories in F1 in the last years, there was somewhat of a truth, because we knew from previous mega contracts of Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso that what is sometimes bound to be secret is actually the real truth. And as in other cases, the story progresses, with the main players coming up with comments one after the other - 2 weeks ago it was Bernie [Eccelstone] who had to repeat once more that Schumaher's return will be the best thing that has ever happened to F1 (or at least lately) and that it may as well be not just a rumor. Then, it is time for Ferrari's team boss Luca di Montezemolo to grant Shumi a formal, but predictable permission to drive for any other team, and it was Luca also days before the contract was signed who signaled that Michael had confessed to him that the move is imminent. Of course former stars, from NIkki Lauda, to Nigel Mansel and Jackie Stewart didn't miss the chance to comment on the rumor and give predictions about Schumi's possible form when he returns from total failure, to winner contender and maybe even fighting for the crown once again. In short, everybody had a say in the matter of Schumi's return, and it was something that excited the world of Formula 1 more than even the final of the season and the crowning of new world champion Jenson Button and his subsequent, almost immediate, move to McLaren. But at the end it was up to only one guy, and this was Michael Schumacher himself, and he choose to come back with a one year contract to try and win the title for Mercedes, the company that launched his career in F1 in the early 90s. So what will be the consequences of that, and is Schumi's return coming in a moment when Formula 1 overflows with young and super fast drivers the right move?
Schumi has lots of strive to drive again, as it was evident in the past 2 years, when he was continuously doing challenging stunts with motorcycles and carts. He was always trying to feel the thrill from Formula 1, but without any success it seems. That's why when he was given the chance to replace injured Massa by the Ferrai boss Luca Di Motezemolo, he jumped at the opportunity and started exercice right away. Not that he wasn't keeping a fantastic shape for the past few years since his exit from Formula 1, but the level of pressure in the sport is so big, and drivers are subjected to such high G-forces that as soon as someone extis, they would fall down in their shape. Later on, Di Montezemolo revealed that he actually had to plead with Michael to come back and help them because he was the only one who could do the job in those difficult time, which is not surprising having seen the subsequent performance of GIancarlo Fissicela who ended up taking Schumi's place. But Schumi didn't need any persuasion, even if he probably didn't respond positively the first time to Luca, deep down in him he knew that the return to Formula 1 was something bound to happen, maybe it was destiny. So when the announcement was made, it seemed that everything fell in place, and Schumi was bound all along to finish his career with Mercedes, the team who was his ticket into Formula 1, and who tried to contract him into then 50% owned McLaren Mercedes, on 3 occasions in 1995, 1998 and 2001, as Norbert Haug the revealed. A finish with Ferrari was no more spectacular and breathtaking, but as a German national, and as Mercedes being maybe the most famous German automobile brand worldwide, this reunion and a almost certain final farewell for Schumacher, is something that beats the class out of almost anything that has happened in Formula 1 in the latest years.
On the opposite end, however, there will be a multitude of drivers in Formula 1, who won't feel such sympathy towards such a return, and this is due to different factors. First, there will always be the drivers that at one point or another felted threatened by Michael's race ethics, and that included once loyal teammate Rubens Barrichelo who had to conceal a victory in favor of Schumi, and double world champion, and current Ferrari frontrunner, Fernando Alonso, who has fought a fierce and often scandalous battle with Michael in the two years that he won his world titles. Then, there will be all those new and very confident drivers who are capable of fighting for the championship, and who would likely feel an enormous pressure to fight not only between themselves, but also with the arguably best driver ever in Formula 1. Those drivers include Sebastien Fettel, Nico Rosberg and even Lewis Hamilton, who even though he says the season will be great, can't help but be put himself in a fierce battle position because he knows this challenge may be his greatest yet. And lastly, drivers like Nick Heidfeld and maybe even Heikki Kovalainen, who were displaced from their teams for one reason or another, and could have used very well the extra place in Mercedes because they deserve it, will feel nothing but animosity towards Schumcaher because of the latter's maybe inconsideration for their future.
So, to what point does a driver to Schumacher need to consider his return and is he responsible for other drivers not finding jobs when they have proven themselves they deserve a fast car? In the case of Kovalainen, it is arguably not directly Schumi's fault because officially he wasn't the reason for Button's signing with McLaren and Kovalainen's departure from there, but of course we all know that Schumi met with Brawn as far back as Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, which proves that Ross Brawn was considering to hire the famous German in a future Mercedes team instead of taking a younger and proven fellow such as Heikki or Nick Heidfeld. Heidfeld is someone who must be really be angry at Schumacher's selfishness right now since he declined several offers because he was given an almost sure offer from Mercedes and now is without a job, while Heikki managed to find another team. As someone who has proven himself a leader in Formula 1, and an inspiration to younger drivers such as Felipe Massa, Schumacher must have considered this, because this may as well be Nick's last chance to make it big in Formula 1. While he himself have won everything there is to be won in F1, broken every record, finished first the most times out of any driver, and won the admiration of both the public and the fans. What more does he want, can't he satisfy his thirst for racing in NASCAR or the World Rally Series? Of course he can, but I think that the question of whether those series are better and most exciting than Formula 1 comes into play here, and the answer is undoubtedly NO. Only Formula 1 could have provided him with the necessary strive to be on top of his capabilities once again, and here is the tribune that will display in the best way his gladiator battle with the car once again.
So finally, maybe Schumacher did block some other progressive drivers from having a seat in the excellent Brawn/Mercedes car, but he may be the only person in Formula 1 who has all doors open, and who is allowed to do something like that just because of his past (and maybe) successes. So I have no doubt that his determination is big, and he will make it into the next season fighting at least for Grand Prix. Whether there will be a lot of stars cannot be said at the moment, but there are never enough stars when we are talking about the world's most famous motor sport. So even if his return and final farewell are not as glorious as his Ferrari career, Michael Schumacher will be there because he belongs there and he knows it is his destiny to finish the final flag of his career with Mercedes Grand Prix.
I am going to feature a couple of blogs about sports shortly, and it will be an ongoing affair from now on I guess since sports are something that I've always followed with enthusiasm and passion. Also, there is so much to write about this great lifestyle that we have invented, much more than the simple scores and victories-loses count. Sport is about character and perseverance, about passion and drive in life, about challenging yourself on the long run. But I'm going to stop getting into too much tangents right now and leave that for another time. Because sport can teach us a lot about life, but only if we concentrate on the right qualities and don't always get crazy about the scores and championships. If everybody was watching a game of football because they wanted to know the score, then there would be no difference between watching a live sport event and reading about it or checking who won in the newspaper. It is rather the opposite way, since people get excited by watching a certain player go over his or her limits, or by the effort and the spirit of a team to successfully battling all odds.
And that's why i'm going to start with two great sportsmen who both have shown that they are the best in what they are doing and have won the admiration and acclaim of the public. Those two players are of course Tiger Woods and Michael Schumacher.
In the recent week, I saw a couple of movies on design from the TED conferences (the D stands for Design) and one got me specifically thinking about the change that design has lived through in the recent decades. Obviously technology has shaped our homes and public spaces in an immense manner, look at the mass spread of computers just in the last 5 years, but what is less noticeable and people rarely care is the design of the small details and appearance of the objects around us. We live in the 21st century, and as with those science fiction stories from the last century about people traveling in the future, we can also assume that if someone comes from as near as the 1920s (less than a hundred years ago), he would be stumbled and shocked by the futuristic world we have created. It is quite significant how we have managed to reshape our environment as if waiting for a visitor from the past, to solidify the doctrine that the future must necessarily look futuristic in comparison with the present. But is it really modern art that has influenced us to that point, or is it merely a superstitious desire to prove that we have advanced technologically?
With the end of the Second World War and the rise of consumer technology, the multitude of objects that surrounds us, and that we see and use every day, has changed globally. With plastic replacing metal and wood for its lighter weight and cheaper price, and with glass being more predominant and left naked in buildings with the frames hidden behind, we're moving on from one era into another that's highly influenced by the art of futurism. In case you are not familiar with this art, futurism was an artistic movement created in the early 20th century in Italy. Its main dictum was that art should clean itself completely from the old and classical tradition and embrace emblems of the future such as speed, technology, cars, airplanes and the industrial city. Its main inspiration came from the industrial society and the dynamism of modern life, and even if it seemed a bit far fetching at the time, it progressed quickly due to the scientific and economic progress of the 20th century. And even if looking at our cities today we see a mix of all arts, not only of futurism, the influence of futurism on the general design of everyday objects has been quite noticeable. There are less and less furniture and decorative objects that feature classical elements and engravings on them, if you go to a modern furniture store like IKEA you would see that predominance is given to the simplicity of forms and joints. And while I approve of the modern feel and functionality of the IKEA homes, I cannot but stumble with incomprehension at the total negligence of artistic form around us. If you walk on the streets, go to a public mall or a restaurant, or simply look at most of the homes today, you would see that the influence of Neoclassicism, Baroque and Rococo is almost forgotten, and we don't have any furniture or decoration any more that can presents us with some artistic reflection and make us feel good in our environment. If in the old era people used objects that have no use even rather than sitting on a shelf (like an old clock, or some vases with no flowers in them) now we tend to give advantage to functionality rather than beauty. Bookshelves are designed to carry the most books possible and even possible some CDs and DVDs, desks are produced with the expectation that there is going to be some computer sitting on them, and so on. And that's not everything, if we look at the general design on street lamps, highway barriers, obsessive road signs and things as simple as edifice windows and walls, you will see that we live in cities that are just plain simple in terms of these elements that we take for granted. True, this is not real art, but then again art is our expression of nature, and if we cannot find it when we look out at the street albeit spotting a couple of street artists, then we should ask ourselves what has gone wrong. I am a supporter of moderate use of technology, and I'm proud we live in a technologically advanced era, but I can't help myself but feel the loss of the details and the knowledge they bring to us just by being in our plain of view.
When I watched the video of Tim Brown criticizing the obsession of today's designer with functionality, I was startled that someone expresses my thoughts exactly to the point. He proposed as a solution a collaborative thinking in design projects, but I see as a bigger problem the artistic expression of today's design, and while I do not think that a return to the classical art is necessary, I believe that a greater engagement of the artist with the object is absolutely necessary. This engagement must pass through the view of the designer of what they are creating as art and it must be trying to break the boundaries of conventionality by giving the object a distinct artistic detail from a similar object while incorporating the author's feelings and thoughts. I understand far well that is not possible at this point in time to completely redesign every small detail in our cities, since it's an economical matter also, but we should encourage diversity and experimentation in design as much as it is possible. We should try and change our environment in a manner that not only is the easiest to built, but is also the most valuable in terms of quality of life. Because at the end the beautiful and the artistic challenging is much more rewarding for our daily life hardships than the neutral and futuristic. Let's life in the present, the world is changing but humanity still rests on the same principles.
I stumbled across some recent development in my university's social scene. The anti-abortion club Pro Choice, which was created last year and receives subsidies from the student organization, has stirred the blood of the socially engaged students once again. The club had a very bumpy start last year, when there was a heated discussion as to whether such a club should be even inscribed as an official university club, but right now they seem to have finally crossed the line as everyone expected them to do soon or later. Inviting a guest speaker, Jose Ruba from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, to give a lecture entitled "Echoes of the Holocaust" and compare the Holocaust to abortion, the group has succeded in alienating even their long time supporters. What's even more probable is that there is a good chance that, if not now, on the next embarrassment which the club will deliver for sure, they will be cut off from any funding even if they still insist they don't use any of it. (yeah, right!)
There is nothing much to say here, looking at Pro Choice groups, and specifically this one, I just don't see any real arguments. Maybe if they allowed some exceptions of allowable aborts in cases like a father raping his daughter and some other atrocities, but just blindly reiterating some naive believe that abortions should be banned is beyond any reason. What's more, obliging someone not to abort and live with their misery and unhappiness, this is the real assault of human rights.
Where have we come in our society with groups like that naively following their goals without actually considering the people themselves?! Wish it or not, with the advent of creationism and similar teachings, the advent of Pro Choice groups is a direct consequence. But while there is some foundation and emotional arguments in support of their views, generally more care should be put for the socially responsible side of the matter. We live in a society of independent individuals and groups, rather than trying to create more and more antagonism among individuals, people who share a different view from the mainstream should try to work their arguments with respect to the people. This could be done by helping the women across the globe who have abortions, and trying to find and understand their reasons, comforting them, but at the same time understanding them and making sure they know you value and respect their decision. You cannot create a group that is detached from our society, from the fundamental human values such as liberty, privacy and respect for personal choice, and try to implement this group to work for the society. I think that Pro Choice (which I write capitalized for a reason) is a fact of our society, and they could contribute with valid arguments because we all know how horrible an abortion can be. But in its current status, those groups resemble very much a cult, and they need to undestand that their demands can bring some sensibilisation and help but cannot be the rule and the hand of law. This questions is almost as open to different answers as religion, so how can one view be taken as the general rule and imposed on people? Democracy is a complex network of self-contradicting and opposing choices, and yet we need to find a way for it work for all of us. This means that tolerance and communications should be the principal agents of our society.
