Skip to main content

Respect!

For a while I've wondered why my 10-year-old Nokia 7110 phone still looks pristine and shows no signs of giving up, where my children's phones are temperamental wrecks after one year.

Admittedly, the 7110 is built like a warship (hey, but it does have that exciting pop open bit at the bottom over the keys, and a variant of it was used in the Matrix!) and the modern phones seem to be made of tissue paper. But it's not just that, it's the way they're treated. I look after my phone - they throw theirs around like hair straightners (which also die after a year, but that's a different story).

On first thought I wondered if it was late adopter syndrome. You know the kind of thing. Most people my age are slightly hesitant with computers, because they weren't around when we were at school. This doesn't apply to me, because way back in 1984 I was programming PCs and they're now second nature. Mostly when someone asks me how to do something on a computer I don't know, but this background means I just muck in and try, rather than be scared of the thing. It's that fear of doing something wrong that holds many back.

But it's not quite that with the phones (and, for that matter digital cameras and other small, portable electronics). The difference, I think, is that I respect them as compact masterpieces. You shouldn't be able to cram all that stuff into that small space - and when you do, it needs some respect if it's going to keep functioning. It's not that I see phones as some strange new object to be handled fearfully, I'm just aware what's in them and how fragile it all is.

Chuck your phone around the place like a hairbrush, and you'll get the results you deserve.

Comments

  1. Whereas I am inclined to agree, Brian, manufacturers rely on built-in obsolescence to stay in business (the 'Man In The White Suit' syndrome) as well as the fickleness of teenagers who are always after the latest model anyway. As for me, I tend to abuse gadgets not because I want to, but simply because I am big and heavy handed, so I appreciate decent construction. The fact that most gadgets are designed for people a fraction my height, mass and crushing power is a source of distress. Clearly, I do not feature very much in any advertiser's demographic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The built-in obsolescence is definitely true of hair straightners (see main text - I guess your girls aren't old enough for these yet, Henry, but the horror of it will come), but the concept was nothing new when Nokia made my phone, and they still managed to make the 7110 solid.

    I bought a new little camera last year, mostly for blogging. After several months and much pocketing, it was still pristine. Then one of my children 'borrowed' it. It now large scratches on the viewing screen. Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hair Straighteners. Oy. Gee Minor has some. I think us manly chaps can say this between ourselves, but women are living proof that entropy exists. They may look lovely and neat, but just look into their bags, bedside cabinets... Victoria Wood once did a super routine about the contents of her handbag. At the very bottom, she said, was her 'emergency tampon'. 'It's been there for 17 years', she said. 'If I'm mugged, I'll reach for it, pull it out, shove it up his nose, and he'll die of toxic shock'.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...