Communicating........or not!

Two sorts of people in this world - the Communicators, and the Non-coms. Of course there are those who have communication as a profession, but, for many ordinary people, apart from those who make texting an art form, connecting with friends, colleagues and strangers is important and should be 'worked at'. In face-to-face conversation, almost everyone manages well. Sounds patronising? True, though, isn't it? It's when it comes to the use of technology that the real divide opens up between the Coms and the Nons . Ever tried to get along with someone who refuses to leave a message with your answering service? How about a person who, although they can afford the facility (you know them well enough), declines to communicate via email? Then there are the ones who have taken the step at long last to run a mobile phone but use it so sparingly ('emergencies' only) that the batteries are often flat anyway. And the people who just think text-messaging is something only kids use and so 'won't have a bar of it'. Are such folk living only half of their lives in this age of global communication 'available to all'? Is it a bit like being asleep for 60% of every day instead of 30%? What do we lose by talking with others?

Cricket umpiring

To stand/change position for two hours at a stretch is a tough call in itself, particularly in trying weather conditions; but to be loaded with making 'unchallengeable' decisions in the face of advanced technology use renders the task almost impossible of achievement. There's no chance now that electronic monitoring and display will be withdrawn from the sport of cricket (or any other sport). While some enthusiasts would claim that (on-field) umpires still hold sway, their role has forever changed, and will continue to do so, by accepted use of radar, lasers, etc. as "aids" in decision-making. Many would argue that including 'hawkeye' and allied electronic wizardry in the game has added to the entertainment value. It's not easy to counter this viewpoint. Nonetheless, umpires are at times made to look second-rate via a decision that clashes with the electronic result. How much can the human frame withstand? Across the board, can the eyesight and powers of judgement of an umpire remain acute enough for 2 hours/6 hours versus the unfailing (?) operation of non-human checking equipment? Will the day arrive where field umpires will be ball-counters and all else will go to the Third Umpire for result? Wow!

The pace of modern living

It's all "go", isn't it? If you were born late in the last century or since, you have it 'in your genes' to live life at a fast pace; something has to be happening all the time, barring sleep, and preferably at flat-out speed. Computers, transport, Olympic sports, eating (fast-food), communication, building and so on are the big speed challenge. What's responsible? The word 'technology' was barely part of the vocabulary thirty years ago - advances in it have swung the living-speed curve up at an almost alarming rate. Whole new forms of enterprise/employment have emerged. Will the the curve steeple, and life's pace become virtually meaningless for us? It was said or written in recent times that a particular launched space probe will reach it's destined target 78.000 years from now. Really, no-one can seriously relate to such an alleged outcome. Can we, in fact, take such a prediction at all seriously? People crunched numbers and came up with the above time-span, but, for all we believe living on the edge is what it's about currently, some concepts have little or no hold on reality; and, it could be said, start to push the boundaries of sanity. Well, that's life! Or is it?