|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
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)
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Certain nuclear technologies are missing. Aircraft goes back to the Wrights who were quite high tech for their day, and they in turn influenced computing (computers were made in Ohio up to the 1980s; we hear and read a very biased history of computing), and those firms spread through the USA and still exist. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"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
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?
- Ditto the comment. Were the citation to include the names of say the G20 nations, etc. I could see that. A small slight is New Zealand (part of UKUSA). I have visited the Swiss technology park. Korea and Singapore are missing. Get a citation. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Style in section "Economy"
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.
Misses critical historical and bureaucratic points
It's somewhat possible to tell that a young nonhistorian/non-technologist wrote this.
One would think that a person writing using the internet as a communication medium would note DARPA/ARPA among the agencies. But this also shows an English/European language bias. This would pointed out in the 1980s by the Japanese during their Fifth Generation Computer work by MITI. When they pointed out the advanced work done in the USA, they cited the Defense Dept. when most Americans and others thought it was all consumer electronics. The response was more than just the USA and Japan but also initiatives like Alvey, and the continental equivalent name European Strategic Program on Research in Information Technology (ESPRIT).