Technology isn't built to last anymore. When I was a kid, I had a walkman that I got in Toronto, back in '94. It lasted all the way till 2002 or something, and the only reason I got rid of it was because all my tapes had worn out and I didn't have the equipment to record new ones. That, and the fact that MP3 players were starting to become available.
I also had a discman, but... my point exactly. My theory is that during the Cold War, technology had to last because it was an item of war, a proof that either side was able to outdo the other. Hence, both sides produced quality technology. I have a radio that was built in East Germany in the fifties or sixties that still works ace. After the Cold War, you had no-one to outdo, so you have to out-do yourself: Produce crap technology that needs to be replaced every two years, to keep the economic cycle going, because spending is better than mending. Case in point: My HiFi was made somewhere in the 70's, and from the sound of it, you would think it was state-of-the-art. As for laptops, I've had three within the last five years, one crappier than the other (the first one was great, the current one is shit). It would be much better for mankind to direct all the technological output and expertise to space technology, because that is an economic cycle that would go on forever. Here, we would actually benefit from groundbreaking innovations every two years. But no, the dollar isn't as quick, and therefore, the market is uninteresting.
/rant
.
