Moore's Mores, Draws Flaws
'This year is going so fast' is a sentiment I've heard so many times lately, that it would be a mouldy old cliche to suggest that I'd be rich if I had a dollar for each time it was uttered. Although it's likely that 70-80% of the time I'm probably hearing myself say it, I'm sure many can identify with the suggestion. Normally this is followed up with 'I know I say that every year, but I really feel like this one has gone faster...'. A simple retort would be that no, every year is 365.25 days long, with 24 hours per day and so on, the time is the same. However, apart from the lame Mr. Obvious joke, this is a blatant misconception; while time can be objectively measured, peoples perception of time passing can be extremely different. 1 minute in a waterboard torturing session is decidedly different to 1 minute with, say, Adriana Lima the way I would dream it). So in that vein, let's consider the 'speed' of a year as a perception of time, rather than the obvious (and still not funny) 'umm..a year is always 12 months' unicycle of thought. It's also worth mentioning the following ramble would mainly apply to those in the developing-lives 20-35 (and possibly up to 50) age bracket. On the other hand, with life expectancy rates increasing each generation, 60 may be the new 30 in no time - so let's all consider this:
Moore's law dictates that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit has doubled (approximately) every two years. For non-technical readers let me draw a simple analogy:
A board (circuit) can fit a certain number of lightbulbs on it (transistors). Moore's law suggests that, because of advancements in peg and lightbulb technology, the amount of lighbulbs that can fit on a board doubles almost every two years - more light, concentrated on the same board area.
Ok, maybe that was a bit weak, almost as if I don't know what analogy means. Anyway, as Brian Moriarty would say, 'The Point Is...' that Moore's law effectively doubles the speed of computers each year. This allows us to perform functions twice as fast and, in an only slightly simple stretch of logic, multiplies the amount of things we're able to do (since most things we do in our lives are via computers), all within the same 24 hour day. Although this also means more technology is developed to automate our lives (think of Roledex before outlook, throwing actual paper balls in office bins before 'Paper Toss' for iPhone etc) it also means more time managing our gadgets. Our tasks are playing catchup with what we can let our gadgets do. Moore's law may in fact have an abstract relation to laws of relative time (general relativity), in that the speed of technological developments also affects our perceptions of 'time' and the speed of our lives. In which case, of course this year seems faster than ever, because our computers, phones etc have doubled in speed and capacity.
It is also arguable that developments in computing capabilities affect everyone implicitly, even for those of us who haven't upgraded our personal technology. For example, a development in film camera technology can mean cinemas themselves show movies differently (as is expected for James Cameron's Avatar, where many U.S. moviehouses are converting to the technology required to screen the film, shot in potentially revolutionary Stereoscopic 3D). This would mean the way we experience films will change, regardless of whether we buy a stereoscopic 3D camera ourselves. The effect of technology, like many other social phenomena (e.g. Got Milk? - catch phrases from ads that become everyday phrases), can permeate through society in silent and discreet ways.
So far, the speed of technological innovation has moved faster than lawmakers have been able to in regulating and stemming the flow of creativity and actual invention (which is what regulators are so adept at). Sometimes authorities have a case, as in Shephard Fairey's appropriation of an Associated Press image that became an iconic poster during Obama's campaign, as it turns out Fairey had lied about using the original source. Ironically, Obama probably has alot to thank Fairey for, and it's likely Associated Press wouldn't have cared had the image not become so lucrative (in money, political popularity etc) to everyone but the A.P. Photoshop makes it easy to appropriate, but just as easy to strip back and superimpose to find instances of copyright. Regulators, and large organisations for the forseeable future, are probably going to find it difficult to charge everyone who (possibly) uses some form of their work - why, because of technological speed.
Blogs, wiki's, everyone's an author, a critic with something important to say, as millions march into the bloggosphere armed with opinions and half-baked social theories (as we're part of the zeitgeist it's probably not our place to say whether this is good or bad) we challenge pillars of authority to catch up. A brilliant piece called A Writing Revolution by Denis G. Pelli & Charles Bigelow suggests that, like the age of universal literacy after the printing press, we're now entering a phase of universal authorship - that is, everyone is becoming a 'published' author. The internet has, naturally, accelerated this process to the point where it's estimated that 0.01 percent of the worlds population are authors (that is they have published a work that more than 100 people have viewed). This speed is so rapid, that we may expect everyone to publish by 2013. With all these blogs to read, all these opinions to consider, the millions more youtube videos to be uploaded, of course our time is going to go quickly - 2013 may prove to be the fastest year yet, perhaps so fast I won't even have time to discuss how fast it is.
An iconic print of Audrey Hepburn hangs slightly lopsided in the local cafe. She's handling a long-cigarette holder nonchalantly, gazing out into some other space, almost contemplative (let's imagine the sophisticated image fits her smarts). I'm sure many of you feel the same - that we haven't felt that expression ourselves for a while - or our years are moving too fast to notice.
