<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc=" http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>briancarper.net (λ) (Tag: Can Openers)</title><link>http://briancarper.net/tag/169/can-openers</link><description>Some guy's blog about programming and Linux and cows.</description><item><title>Technology ain't everything</title><link>http://briancarper.net/blog/technology-aint-everything</link><guid>http://briancarper.net/blog/technology-aint-everything</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:40:55 -0800</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Let's discuss can openers.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Growing up, my parents would often invest in electric can openers.  These things never worked.  Some of them sit robot-like on top of the can and walk themselves around the top while chopping the metal.  Some of them were mounted on the wall and you somehow get the can to hang in a harness while the device spins the can around.  It takes a PhD and double-jointedness to get the can set up in these devices properly.  And then you push a button, a lot of noise happens, and usually the can ends up half-open, half-bent up to the point where it's un-openable short of dynamite.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When I open a can, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butterfly&amp;amp;churchkey.jpg&quot;&gt;one of these&lt;/a&gt;.  You jam the metal bit into the can and turn the crank, the can spins in a circle and 10 seconds later, off comes the razer-sharp top.  The one I own was probably manufactured in the 1980's and it's still sharp enough to open a can with minimal effort.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Is it &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; that hard to turn a handle for 10 seconds?  Do we &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; need computer-controlled robotic can-opening devices?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Consider books.  I still buy and read all of my books in the form of compressed wood pulp.  There are newfangled e-book readers, but I don't want one.  Why?  Because the only places I read are 1) In the bathtub, and 2) Lying in bed.  Taking a computer into the bathtub is generally not a good idea, and holding a Kindle above my head for 3 hours is awkward compared to lying a (3-D) book on the bed beside me with one page bent up so I can read it.  (Note: I have dropped a book in the bathtub on more than one occasion, and contrary to my expectations, once it dried it was still perfectly readable, no ink runnage at all.)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I know some day, maybe soon, paper books are going to be gone and we're all going to read books from digital devices.  But I like my books.  I know there are benefits to having electronic books instead of paper ones.  But even though they're a waste of space, even though they can have pages ripped out, even though they can burn up or smudge or age and become brittle, I like paper books better.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mostly I like paper books because they're simple, analog devices.  I don't have to mess with any kind of user interface.  Books don't have battery life.  Books don't have copy protection.  Books don't require me to sign up for user accounts at some website and worry about having an internet connection.  I can flip through the pages with my fingers.  I can tell how many pages are left by the thickness of the pages that are left.  I have actually never comfortably finished a long e-book, not even books about programming, where you'd think the ability to copy/paste code would be a boon.  I'll pay good money for a paper copy of a book even if the electronic version is free.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is probably the most banal thing I've ever written about.  But there is such a thing as too much technology.  I say this as a person who spends all day trying to get people to use databases instead of keeping drawers full of paper records.  Technology for the sake of technology is a waste of time.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>

