I absolutly adore writing which is why I jumped at the chance to purchase this laptop that I am currently writing on. I've always wanted a laptop ever since I got really into the writing bug. I remember that I produced my first piece of published literary work on the type writer given to me by Santa aged 6 . Published in the sense that once I had typed it out with great care not to make any spelling errors, I took it to the local library and photocopied about 10 copies to hand out to my family and friends. I even remember what it was about, a young boy and his red ballon. OK, so I was no Charles Dickons but the important thing was that I enjoyed it.

My first proper piece of published literary work was a piece I wrote for the school magazine when I was about 15. Since then some of my short stories have been put up on a website that a friend of mine runs. Anyway, my point being is that I've always written and therefore it seems to justify buying this laptop. It wasn't expensive nor is it state-of-the art technology.

I find it strange that I should come accross few problems using this old technology when I am so used to using new technology. I mean, isn't it supposed to be the other way about? Still I have a pile of manuals to go through and at the end of it wil be a master of the Windows95 system.

I can almost hear all the dot-commies, all the computer-nerds scoff at it. Windows95! Thats absolutly, positivly prehistoric! No offence meant to any dot-commie/computer nerds out there but I don't see the point in really having anything more advanced when I don't really need it. Then again there is alot of that in the world, isn't there?

Take my family for example. They have all sorts of gismos and gadgets that really are surplus to requirement. They have a wide screen tv, top notch computers with all sorts of fancy things attached to them, camera mobile phones, Sky(or Spy)TV, DVD players, the list just goes on and on. I feel sorry for them because they truly believe that their lives are better, that they will be happier with the newest technological device.

They also seem to think that I need them, this is how I have come into possession of a handheld tv(that I haven't watched since shortly after I got it) a hand-held computer thingy which I did use for a couple of months but went back to using pen and paper to store my adresses and important dates finding that they are a much more reliable source (batteries can never run out with paper). I also have a camera mobile phone. I admit that I use the phone part of it on a regular basis, but I can't say that I have used the camera all that often nor felt the need to browse on the built in internet service.

Take TV for example. Why on earth would someone want a widescreen television? It only makes the rubbish on the tv look bigger. It is said that in an adverage lifetime a person will watch up to ten years of tv. Ten Years! My God, think of all the more productive, interesting things that could have been done in that time. Studies also show that children who watch little or no TV are less violent and therefore more co-operative, more imaginative and do better at school and are healthier over all. If this is the case, why do parents expose their children to it? For a few moments peace? They don't have the time to sit and play with their own children? There could be countless of reasons why. I'm not saying that parents who expose their children to TV are bad parents, but they should consider what this exposure is doing to them.

Then even worse than ordinary bog standard TV, there is SkyTV or SpyTV as it should be know by. Did you know that at any given time, that little black( or in some cases silver) box that sits upon your tv delivering hundreds of channels of nonsense can hold up to 64,000 bits of information about you and your family? Every time a channel is changed, a favourite program watched, or that new blender with the 10 brilliant attachments bought from QVC information is stored in your box and sent back to the company.

It's shocking to think of all the money each year that goes on new and sometimes pointless technology. Bill Gates salery alone would be enough to assist thousands of people in need in the developing countries. Where people actually need the money to give them a standard of life most of us would laugh at. Yet it is because of countries like this that the EU countries and the US are so proseperous. If our countries called of World Debt realising that the Developing countries cannot afford to pay it back, that because of their payments, millions die each day. If our countries stopped selling arms to these developing countries and then blowing them up in a supposedly valid war.

Yet, not all technology is needless. Medical Technology is a godsend and very much needed throughout the world. Less people die because of diseases than they did 200 years ago and advancments in this field can only offer benifits. If only it was available to everybody. Think of what could happen in countries like Africa if they had access to Birth Control, or knew that giving babies powdered milk when the water is polluted should never,ever be done. I'm sure Nestle enjoy profiting from this, but what about all the mothers who have lost their children? How would the people at Nestle feel if their children died because of a needless and terribly wrong piece of advise.

Technology that assists with the finding of missing persons can only be a good thing, or in the aid of preventing proper, serious crimes like murder and rape. Technology that actually benifits the greater good, helps people.

We don't need wide screen tv's, the latests hifi system, the new video mobile phone but what we DO need 'good technology'. Imagine what the world would be like if all the needless technology was put to one side, and the technology developers actually concetrated on this 'good' technology. It they put more time and effort into finding a cure for cancer or cheap and accessable treatment for everybody, so much could be achieved.

Madisyn Raine

21/01/2004