Talk:High tech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Definition?[edit]

It seems odd that the page is headed with a section on origins. Protocol would be a definition of high-tech heading the page, with origins as a leading sub-section. Is someone better qualified than me willing to write this? Eleanor White (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I've reverted some vandalism on the origin section. Deviant83 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Origins?[edit]

When and how did the term originate? It happened sometime between the 1960s (when it was unheard of) and the 1990s (when it became common). I think that one indication of this is that MIT was not named the "Massachusetts Institute of High Technology." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The band Love released an album called Cybertracks in 1966 with the words "HI-TECH ELECTRONIC MUSIC" on the cover. It's not definitive, but I mention it in case it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.184.34 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Example[edit]

"so products hyped as high tech in the 1960s would now be considered, if not exactly low tech, then at least somewhat obsolete"

The above sentence only applies for certain technologies. 1960's spacecraft, jet aircraft (the fastest military jet fighter is a 60s design), nuclear power, etc. are still relatively high tech today. The most extreme example would be manned space exploration as we have slided backwards into 1940s levels of technology. 203.184.2.147 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"See also" link to Naturoid contested[edit]

I'd like to avoid a revert war over the "See also" link to Naturoid. My concern is that it is inappropriate to include a link to every article that describes something that someone might regard as "high tech." — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


As the author of the 'theory of naturoids' ('before named 'theory of the artificial') I do not agree. It is obvious that not all Hi-Tech devices are naturoids. In fact, the theory says that the technology (and its history) has a double, alternate teleology: the 'conventional technology' aims to produce machines that have no instances in the natural world, while the 'technology of naturoids' aims to re-produce technologically things that reside in nature. Nevertheless, both are technological traditions and that of naturoids is today strictly linked to the so-called Hi-Tech. Massimo Negrotti, University of Urbino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.68 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2000 cut-off[edit]

"As of 2006, any technology from the year 2000 onward may be considered high tech." wHY? i WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS THAT THERE are some decidely low-tech inventions from the period 2000=2009; there certainly were in the '90s. Kdammers (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples of high-tech societies[edit]

What criteria were used to define the examples in he following excerpt from the article?

Many countries and regions like United States, Singapore, Canada, Greece, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Australia, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and France can be in general considered high-tech societies in relation to other countries...

Do we have any citations? Why, for example, was Switzerland not included? Did the author include them in this order like this for a reason? Should they be re-orded to be alphabetic?

--194.217.113.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Even though the abbreviation 'high tech' is now more common, surely the article should be given the full name 'high technology'? Cf low technology Ben Finn (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Style in section "Economy"[edit]

The paragraph beginning with "Like Big Science..." doesn't really read like an encyclopedia entry, it's kind of verbose and doesn't give very much information. Also "if investment exceeds potential... investors can lose most of their investment." Uh... yeah, obviously.

EndgameCondition (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)