I'm sick of the disposability of things. There's the waste problem, the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses problem, and the fact that stuff is going to break down.

Why must every previous device be made obsolete with every new development? Why can't we value machines over lifetimes-- multiple generations-- as opposed to a few years or until the next one comes out?

I want to see a "chassis" approach to electronics-- replacing or repairing only components or subsystems to get new functionality.

The iPod Deb gave me is a good example of this-- worthless to her, a solid chassis with a bum battery and probably hard drive too. With a 8 or 16GB CF chip, a new battery, and bluetooth, it could keep going for decades.

The blue LED's are invading my life. I hate them.

It would be difficult to replace blue LED's with "regular" (read: red, green, yellow, or white) ones-- for surface-mount LED's and RGB ones, I'd more likely damage the circuit board... though outright removing one would be almost as good as replacing one, with the added spiteful element of having gouged its eye out for irritating mine...

Blue LED's are alienating to many people, especially those over a certain age; they seem alien and "wrong" somehow, and it's not a result of growing up with LED's of colors other than blue, but the fact that we simply do not see blue glowing things in nature. Red, yellow, orange and white are colors we know from fire and the stars-- light sources in nature-- and these have been the colors of electronic light elements until a few years ago.

We should have learned in chemistry lab to fear blue flames since they're so hard to see, and blue-lit electronics are successors to customized cars' blue neon undercarriage lighting. These are menacing associations for me, and they also evoke cheapness and cheesy after-market design.

The blue LED has invaded consumer-level electronics and is starting to make it into higher-end electronics as well, and I think it will have an overall cheapening effect on the brand images of those companies who choose to use them. It's a high-tech artifact motif like the raw polygon and aliased pixel, and I hope it will go away after we get over its novelty.

From a DCinemaToday Article Jan 17, 2005:

In-Three’s Dimensionalization® process provides film makers, studios, and exhibitors with a new solution to 3D movie making and presentation. In-Three’s Dimensionalization® process is completely accomplished in post-production and, as a result, filmmakers now have a powerful new tool at their disposal and no longer have to concern themselves with the inherent complexities and difficulties of having to shoot in 3D with traditional dual camera systems. Furthermore, movies converted to 3D via the Dimensionalization® process produce no eye fatigue for theatre audiences.

Buzz-wordy and nothing more. Dimensionalization is pure bunk-- prior art and obvious.