My boyfriend and I were having a debate: While I think film was revolutionary and helped kick-start the world's technological advances far more than the advent of the steam engine ever would, my boyfriend says he prefers the digital medias of today because they will never degrade with time.
While I admit that the film quality in a VHS tape will deteriorate with every viewing, I still think that the video tape was an integral stepping stone to bigger and better things. I love the way an old video tape will gain a grainy undertone, and how, if a film has been watched too many times the colors fade.It lets me know that the film was a favorite of someone's. DVDs will only scratch, and if a computer file gets corrupted, there's little to nothing you can do to recover it.
I just don't get how he thinks these shiny new hi-tech things will outlast media that was simple and outstanding for its tenacity, when his hi-tech things break all the time.My books never wear out, though the bindings get old and crack sometimes. His kindle fire has burnt out twice, now.My records may sound 'tinny' to his ears, but if I take care of them they won't get scratched (and they'll never put a virus on his computer, either).My NES system may need a new video relay, but that's a whole lot cheaper than buying a new processor for my XBox 360, or buying a new one altogether.
Cell phones are great, but I remember when I had my first cell.It was the nineties/early two-thousands, and my little candy-bar phone could get reception EVERYWHERE. I could have been out in the middle of my swamp, and I would have been able to make a phone call! Now, I can barely have a conversation up in my bedroom without the connection getting cut.
Older things just work better. They sound better, and they don't break nearly as often. Things today were meant to break quickly so we'd have to shell out for new tech. That's how I feel, anyhow.
What do you guys think? Which one is better, Hi-tech or low-tech?
См. статью: Is Hi-tech better or is Low-tech better?