Skip to main content

Marvellous uselessness

As you may have gathered, I love technology, and sometimes I think it's important to celebrate technology - even when it is, to all intents and purposes useless.

Such an example of useless technology has recently been introduced to me by the inestimable Dr Henry Gee aka Cromercrox. It's Google's latest toy, Latitude. It's a little application you run on a suitable mobile phone which puts your current location on a map. And this can be seen by friends who you authorize to see it, either on their computer or their phone. So, for example, in the picture alongside you can see where I was three days ago, on a visit to my daughter's orthodontist.

It's totally useless for two reasons. One is that (certainly with an iPhone) it only pinpoints your location when you ask it to. So it's rarely going to be really where you are. And the other is that there isn't a lot of reason to find out where someone else is anyway, unless you are meeting up when you will probably have arranged a location. Okay you might both find yourself in London, say, and decide spur of the moment to meet up. Then you could even get walking directions to get from A to B. But otherwise it hasn't much point.

But so what? It's fun. I can, both from my PC and my phone, see where Henry was 6 days ago. What is there not to like?
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox21 November 2009 at 13:12

    Inestimable? I think I am entirely estimable. Whererever I am.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg21 November 2009 at 14:26

    I've tried to estim you many times, and have always failed. Perhaps because your Latitude location is so out of date...

    ReplyDelete
  3. cromercrox21 November 2009 at 15:17

    That's cos I haven't looked at it for ages. Technology is always moving on: Latitude is SOOOO Last-Week.

    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
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more