Screenshots

Unless they come out with a microprocessor that can think and act by its own, humans will always have the highest control power and choose to reverse it.

I think the trend is emerging, even now. You go to the bank, people starts to say, "sorry sir, we can't do anything, that's how the program is written". Even now, technology is in charge for some of the things. Yeah, agreed it is a dangerous thing. Imagine autodrive for your car that is completely out of your control.

Nonetheless, worse case switch of the power grid and do a roll back manually. I think human will always have the control to reverse it.

"sorry sir, we can't do anything, that's how the program is written".

very interesting point streetz.

well, even the programmes have to be written by the human being. Granted, AI can be taught to do some of the programming etc. etc.

BUT, do we remember the two incidents of the stock markets disaster? I think one was in the US in the late 80s or early 90s. And the most recent is the one happen in Japan late last year or early this year. Someone might have a better recall of these two incidents. Both cases shown us the danger of letting machines control you.

The danger I see is, we will have a group of technophile that would control the rest of the world, much would be what we see now how US is controlling and pushing the tech market, and most decisions are market oriented (money, money, money) with little thought on if the technology would lead to failure for human kind ...remember e-learning? or the dot.com bubbles? The answers the bank receiptionists are giving is one very common sign of 'people with the knowledge control those without'. We are being trained to be stupid.

The reason why this world is askew with billionaires in a few countries, and hunger and death in some others is a picture we should keep in mind as we think technology.

I am not anti-technology per se, but I do think we have responsibilities to protect those that through no faults of their own are not able to compete. There are so many things we can live without technology. I have never bought a VCR, or DVD player (my PC has it but I ignore it), microwave and other gadgets. My mobile phone is a vintage version of 2000 (I seldom use it and that considered I used to work as trainer and tech support for wireless equipment manufacturers).If more of us are putting up an effort, we can slow down the onslaught of technology to a MANAGABLE flow. And not letting the market of a lucky few to control the rest of mankind.

Does anyone know how many zeros is a billion? Can someone image to live on $1 or less a day? Can anyone tell me what is the real motive behind the Gates' Foundation? It is not technology those poor countries need. It is 'slow-down' technology and LET THEM CATCH-UP. As a whole country/nation .... not AGAIN a lucky few.

Dire warning: digital divide is a real and threatening phenomenon. This reality which behaves in stealth, will for now and in the future marginalise societies into blocks of haves and have-nots -- poor becoming poorer -- rich becoming richer.

It won't be too far away into the future that simple ideas like broadband will be taken into account as important regressed value and factor that will determine per capita GDP and human development index.

E-learning failed because it was mostly designed by a programmer who doesn't have experience in teaching a subject rather then a professional with in-depth knowledge of learning through technology.

And if you run into a situation where someone says, "sorry sir, we can't do anything, that's how the program is written".

Then that particular company should fire the programmer for not creating a software that meets the user requirements or the clerk who doesnt know how to use that particular software provided if the software is not at fault.

The only trend that I could see emerging is the division between the people who do not grasp that technolgy is used to assist us and those who do.

Seriously, if you hired a person with basic accounting and who relies heavily on a particular software to do accounts are sitting on a time bomb. It just show the lack of understanding in technology.

"It won't be too far away into the future that simple ideas like broadband will be taken into account as important regressed value and factor that will determine per capita GDP and human development index"

It was not that long ago, and still so, in some places on the earth, that electricty and running water was not taken for granted. That is called "progress" and is not meant to be used as part of the very old and tired "digital divide" issue. The idea of SLOWING DOWN technology so that the poor can "catch up" is one of the less progressive thinking that has been expoused.

"Seriously, if you hired a person with basic accounting and who relies heavily on a particular software to do accounts are sitting on a time bomb. It just show the lack of understanding in technology."

I assume that you meant to say that that show a lack of understanding of the SUBJECT MATTER?

Computer programmes can only do what the human being designs it to do. Technonoly is DUMB - we are the masters of technology. Therefore if some idiot at the counter says that the 'systems are down' & he/she cannot do anything about it - that individual can be defined as a moron in all its totality. Whatever programmes are written, we humans write them, the computer does not write it by itself. Hence we design the programs, create the logic & write the functions - as WE are the masters. It is of great importance that all humans learn to 'control' these programs.

This is my thesis statement - Technology will change the world and cause a digital divide between those who know and those who do not, but those who know can still contribute their bit to reducing this disparity.

In the coming age, there will be those who think hard to create technology by understanding the business impact to the community and the business processes. These are the ones who KNOW while the ones who just use the technology without thinking much will continue to be reduced to mere users who use less and less of their brain, or use less of their brain for certain applications and free up space to learn other areas. But those who decide to just sit back and enjoy the comfort with little analytical thought, will be left behind.

1. Streetz mentioned about the autodrive facility in the car malfunctioning and causing danger. Check this website on a car that automatically parks for you even those difficult side parkings for some. I personally saw this last night in Tokyo.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/05/toyotas-self-parking-car-coming-soon-to-us/

Technology will continue to take over many things that we find difficult to do. But we still need to know how to get our hands dirty to drive the car ourselves and disable autodrive and autopark.

2. Cindy mentioned that we can choose to reduce the use of technology when we have a choice. We can certainly do away with some comfort and contribute less to Bill Gates or others who are already making enough billions of dollars. I do not agree because without using these technologies or being involved in creating them, we forfeit ourselves the opportunities to understand these technologies and be in the class of people who KNOW. While technology will continue to create the digital divide, it is better to be on the side of the KNOW than the side of those who are ignorant, who do not think and who face helplessness when we do not have anything else that is not manual. You may be proud that you do not use the handphone or the LRT and cycle to work. But, do you use the Internet, watch TV or even turn on the tap. Would you want to be a caveman or cavewoman who does not even know how to flush a toilet or press the bell to call on your neighbour?

3. 2Sane is right that e-learning failed because of a bad programmer and it is slowly gaining popularity now. Technology goes through cycles such as witnessed in the stock market or currency market. It goes down and up and hopefully edges up over a span of 10-20 years. But most likely less. We will continue to see resistance of use, ill-adapt technologies and errors. But the human mind is capable to solving them and improving their applications to be more useful to the community. With globalisation, there is a competition for good ideas and the best brains from the whole world will compete to bring new technology that would ease the life of people. The index of technology will set to climb up and up. More applications that failed in the past will continue to find new use or be customized for new customers that want them.

4. "A low-cost global network will be thriving and creating new opportunities in a “flattening” world."

One such network is www.linkedin.com

It is free network that brings together professionals from around the world who have different business needs and directly communicating and working with others. I am the top Linked In member in Japan with 4500 members in my network. I help businessman enter Japan and Malaysia. I make things happen. You can check out this website or my profile by clicking on my user id.

5. "People will wittingly and unwittingly disclose more about themselves, gaining some benefits in the process even as they lose some privacy."

That is exactly what I did in 4 by revealing my profile and also done by Jeff Ooi here to maintain credibility of what is being said. While there are security to provide privacy, we try to use technology to gain trust from one another and this is the key to building a new world.

6. "Indeed, many felt other languages such as Mandarin, would grow in prominence."

Mandarin will only grow in prominence if China grows technologically like Japan and insists on not learning English. Interestingly many Chinese now speak English.

I would claim that Japanese will be more important than Mandarin if the Japanese continue their mentality of not speaking English but still continue to churn out new innovations, continual productivity and hard work. It is amazing to see Japanese having that sense of serving their fellow citizens and the respect they have for one another. Who would think a garbage collector would do his job in pride, or a construction worker standing in the rain to warn others of the hole that was dug out or a policemen wearing his raincoat and cycling around small lanes to patrol in the residential neighbourhood. Can we emulate this in Malaysia? Nope, there are too many lazy citizens especially since certain races are beginning to infect others with their complacency, their need to take tea breaks and other breaks during work and their need to find an easy way to gain from corruption, kick backs or politics.

7. So will there be increasing disparity and inequality between the have and have nots, the rich and the poor, those who know and those who do not. Yes. But, those who know and have can do their bit to contribute to help those who do not. They can set up more trust funds and manage them well to help the poor, the sick and the underdeveloped. What other choice do we have? Stay behind and not learn? Or stay behind and learn to play politics, backstab others and not learn. Either way, we should move towards a progressive state. Hopefully, we will see more meritocracy in Malaysia so that the country can advance towards 2020.

To Philip Lee,

If I am a cavewoman, it would not bother me if I do not know how to flush the toilet.

It is not the matter of not learn, but why and what to learn. Imagine Gates throwing a few millions in some poor villages where there is no electricity, no flush toilets, BUT to use the money to build a wifi network ... what is the point? These poor villiagers would be FOREVER trying to catch-up, and waiting for hands-out for more advanced technology.

Would a mobile phone that can take photos enrich my call? Not really. But if I would to trade in my vintage phone now, I would have to pay for something that I do not need. That is what I am trying to say.

Look around your own home, how many gadgets do you really need and USE 50% of the time?

I also find that I survive very well with 7 blouses, 2 pairs of shoes, and 7 skirts. I don't need more.

Assuming Malaysia is an island, without satellite TV, without internet. Would Malaysians be lacking in any way of surviving? I don't think so. Compare to the 50s, 60s when I grew up, would the wealth the Malaysians have these days, the bizillions technologies that fill most of the house MAKE Malaysians any happier?

I have always been unhappy about the way economists and politicians and surveys talk about numbers. As a NON-economist, I always thought those numbers do not tell the true story. Recently I came across something - Buddist Economics -- The Middle Way for the Market Place by ven P.A. Payutto. First written in 1988. It is only 60 pages. You might understand what I mean about what we can do with many EXTRAs that many of us deem necessary.

As for e-Learning (2SaNe).. e-Learning first appeares with the slogan -- learning anytime, anyplace. That would mean company do not have to compensate training time for the employees, training travelling expenses, or training location. AND big saving $$$$$ because the system should replace the expensive teachers and trainers. NOTE: pure marketing fantasy and money saving schemes for the companies ... the already RICH folks. And not with the thought on the learners.

Philosophical arguments about whether we NEED technology or should return to living in the stone age is entertaining, but does little to help anyone - let alone close the digital divide. Technology and advancement in other areas are a fact of life that MOST people crave. It is better to go with the flow - even if we think the world needs to be saved from itself - than to stand in front of the 5-ton truck that is barreling down the highway at 120 km per hour.

Having said that, there are actually some of us in technology that believe that helping close the digital divide is a money making proposition that satisfies both the materialistic (LSE economists and Columbia MBA) and humanist (no training here!) side of us. Read The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K. Prahalad. As long as we THINK that the underprivilege has to be "helped" instead of being a viable market, they will always be "stuck" at the bottom and depend on kind hearted people to look after their interest. I agree that there is no point in providing broadband if someone has no electricity (although Negropointe obviously does not think so). But that is not what the digital divide is about. THose people do not want Internet access is not aware that there is a divide. They have other needs. The divide occurs where people WANT it, and cannot get it at an AFFORDABLE price. People may say they don't "need" Streamyx at RM 66 per month, but what is it was RM 20 per month? Rm 10 per month? Free???

Therein lies the BUSINESS opportunity for people who can solve that problem. That is actually what some of us are doing - providing affordable basic service -whilst others chase the faster and fatter bandwidth that widens the gap. An example is Toyota that started providing small, cheap cars for people who cannot afford the Mercedes, BMWs (we don't need to compare to the Mazarati and Ferraris) is now the biggest auto company in the world.

Can we close the chasm? Maybe not. Civilization through the ages have always had rich and poor. I doubt that the gap is getting any wider compared to the days of Roman emperors and gladiators or when US tobacco farmers had slaves do the work, or when British colonialist had Indians tap rubber. And it will not disappear. We can only enable those who want to join the digital world to be able to do so - AND to make money doing it. No shame to claim that - or it will not happen.

Almost a hundred years ago, EM Forster published a short story entitled, "The Machine Stops." In it, he imagines a future world where people live in underground hexagonal dwelling units, physically separated from one another but keeping in touch via a kind of teleconferencing. Food, air, lighting, music - everything needed to sustain life in this world - is provided by a "Machine". Then, one day the Machine stops, and this world crumbles. Is this our future yet to come?

The same thinking that promoted the thinking that with computers, we will not need paper and save trees??? :)

The question is how do we change the world we live in. With power or to void the world with its need to want. If we can preach contentment to all, yes, we can possibly maintain a status quo of equality. But, that will not happen. The other alternative is to gain power to change the world. The means to that power is knowledge.

We will have no voice if we insist on living in villages and the powers that be purge us from our existence. This is the reality of life. Either we gain the technology to survive or we live at the mercy of those who have the technology and the guns. And we pray for those in power to be good stewards of that which has been entrusted to them. It definitely helps if we strive to be them.

the next question is... technology is so unpredictable today. It is just a survey which everyone expect it to behave in certain manner apart from being realistic.

Anyway... if i am coming up with any new technology, i will never disclose any information about this particular breakthrough technology.

Therefore... can i assume that everyone here is trying to be a fortune teller?? Trying to predict how technology will be in the future? just my 2 cents thought...

there is a different between 'stop technology' and 'slow down so the REALLY, REALLY behind can catch-up'.

If we persistantly saying: it will never happen without putting in some efforts to make it happens, noting will never happen.

The different between knowing and not doing anything about it, and not knowing therefore cannot do anything about it is world apart. I think I can assume those of us enjoy reading this blog of Jeff Ooi belongs to the first group. Therefore can we do something about it? OR should we just say ... OH well ...

Where are we going? On average we can stay on this earth 70 years. Even if we can have all the first class and most advanced technologies on hand, one day we are not going to take them along. Can we not have some self control and not let the manufacturers pull us along by our noses?

I am all for technologies when they serve the purpose. But the more I look at technology, the more I think we are letting technologies destroying mankind.

Bearing in mind that without technology - we will not be "enjoying" this conversation in the first place.. yes, there are many of us trying to "do something about it" - but not by stopping the trend.

Also, in respond to confuze, there are very few technological developments that really changes the world. It is human ingenuity in adopting, adapting, modifying, evolving "enabling" technologies that changes the world. The invention of computers - as in the early ones that filled up a room just to compute, did not change the world. The smarts of Steven Jobs and Bill Gates (whether we like them making money from it or not) did. It brought "computing technology" to all of us to enjoy. There will be those who can bring it to the have nots to enjoy as well - one day.

Bearing in mind that without technology - we will not be "enjoying" this conversation in the first place.. yes, there are many of us trying to "do something about it" - but not by stopping the trend.

Also, in respond to confuze, there are very few technological developments that really changes the world. It is human ingenuity in adopting, adapting, modifying, evolving "enabling" technologies that changes the world. The invention of computers - as in the early ones that filled up a room just to compute, did not change the world. The smarts of Steven Jobs and Bill Gates (whether we like them making money from it or not) did. It brought "computing technology" to all of us to enjoy. There will be those who can bring it to the have nots to enjoy as well - one day.

Dear Cindy

I respect your point of view, but in all honesty, we can not slow down technology. We probably could if we are an island. But not anymore. By the way, do you drive?

I see the best illustration to be driving on the 110km per hour highway ... although in Germany BAAN superhighway, the speedlimit is much higher. Let us just say that you have wanted to cycle or walk. Can you do that on a highway? It is prohibited. Now, let us make it even more realistic, you want to drive at 20km per hour in your car. Yes, that is allowed but you will be honked sometimes.

Traffic of technology is coming at a speed and volume that you will definitely not be able to stop. It does not matter if you drive slowly or even stop traffic behind you. There are other lanes. It makes no difference what you do.

Rather, it makes difference if you contribute to technology. You learn how to create blogs and publish your blogs. And this allows others to use your technology if it is beneficial and changes the world in a positive way. And if you have created a far reaching impact to the world and is able to collect much revenue from it, you can then have influence to contribute to society more and give to the needy.

Increasingly, your childrens generation and maybe even yours will depend on technology and knowledge. If you deny technology and say that the mobile phone internet is unnecessary, others who are able to create far reaching impact on that technology will supercede you in your usefulness to the society. In fact, I am glad you at least follow blogs because many who hold the same mentality as you would probably have denied the utility and gain arrived from using the internet and blogs.