On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 09:29:42 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>I believe that preservation of the past, through buildings,
>and the objects we use on a daily basis, whether currently
>useful or obsolete, are an important part of our culture and
>heritage. By making everything disposable, and planning on
>obsolescence, what will remain of our culture, history, and
>heritage in 100 or 200 years?
I agree with you 200%, Shel.
It's a shame that we continually design and build things with "built-in obsolescence."
We, it seems, have lost
the pride that once was our "trademark" of making items that would withstand the test
of time. Like a recent
advertisement I heard states, "a device that's made to keep track of time, should also
be able to withstand
it's affects." (It was a Rolex advertisement)
I ran across the below Wirgin Gewirette camera listed on eBay. It's obvious that the
designers had longevity
in mind when they built it. That concept has been replaced by "throw it away and buy
another one when it
breaks", and that's sad. IMHO.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1257213035
Later,
Gary
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
