The program has changed a lot.  Here is a bit of a retrospective on the features of the older versions...and a new, never before seen build!

Version 1.0 beta & 1.0

This was the first version that was publicly released.  This was the version that was shown off Southwestern University's Student Work Symposium.  It's a bit buggy, although the biggest version between 1.0 beta and 1.0 is the addition of a dependency checker.  As a result, here they are together.

The biggest change obviously is the lack in color.  There is no color.  In fact, color wasn't even planned to be implemented until the summer.

Interestingly enough, "config" , " server"  and "connect"  are valid commands in 1.0 beta, but not 1.0.  This was simply because I forgot to remove those from aliases, which caused the beta to recognize it.

1.0b/1.0 used the original parser, which was inspired by how WebOS manages multiple program.  Essentially, each statement the command sends a " card"  that contains a list of arguments, as well as other things (such if output should go to a file, etc.).  The problem with this is that the parser was a memory hog...and can be simply incorrect.

This version also had several obnoxious bugs that involve errors not being in the "strings" data file, causing confusing .NET errors.  One of which is "Parameter cannot be null", which is what you get when you try using "up"  from C:\.  It is null because there's nowhere to go up from the root - but, instead of saying that, it simply says that it's null, causing a problem.

I could've sworn I had an earlier version of WELSH - but I do not.  This actually made me very sad, as I like looking out how projects evolve over time.  

Really, there is no reason to use this version.  It's buggy and unexpected.

Version 1.3

Version 1.3 came about when I had some free time, and I wanted to fix some bugs.  Not only did I fix a lot of bugs (such as the previously mentioned 'up' bug, and a bug involving saving variables...unfortunately, not a bug involving rational numbers magically becoming integers), but gave WELSH colors, a time command, and several other useful features.

There are still some missing features, such as networking or even configurability.  

1.3 was a tad bit of a miracle was finished within a week.  Unfortunately, I wish I named it something different - this was the one that should be WELSH 1.0.  While it has its share of  bugs (must were, however, caused by the parser that was used at this time), it is very much usable and not as frustrating to use as the 1.0 versions.

Version 2.0: The In Progress Builds, Alpha

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but WELSH at this point has a new parser, configuration features (that were even rewritten once!), and even network communication between WELSH instances.  Output has been rewritten, and even better, the executable itself is smaller and uses less memory.

I would rather use the alpha for 2.0 than 1.3 at this point.  Heck, alpha is a misnomer.  It's not feature complete, but it works properly.

Version 2.0: Where We Are Right Now

Unfortunately, I can't give a screen shot.  I'm working on implementing tab completion, which means i have to mess with how input is dealt with - and right now, that's a mess.

But right now, we have even less bugs thanks to an integrated testing framework....and in the works, we have tab completion, better file protection, and a few other things.

So thank you for staying and using with WELSH.  We have much more tricks up our sleeves, which we will be glad to show you.

Photo is of a art piece in the Phoenix Convention Center, taken by a member of our group.

The experience was interesting, to say the least.  The only real emphasis in technology was through either search engine optimization, the rights of bloggers, or new multimedia techniques (such as soundslides, which is something I still don't get).

In fact, everything else was common sense - what people would learn from a basic Journalism 101 class, which was a class I took for fun.  There was information about technology, but no real information on how to integrate it with journalism.  We had fancy futuristic talks about Web 3.0 (which is apparently things like Pandora and Apple's Genius, which makes no sense to me), but nothing about why it was important.  

Essentially, most of the sessions were big picture - rather than educating the common journalist on why it is important to be online (which many of them know that it is, but there are numerous reasons why rather than "it's the future" and "everyone else is doing it), they talk about well, things like Web 3.0.  

One of the reasons why this is important is because of journalists, at least from my experience from this last conference and the conference this year, seem to put journalism and some sort of journalistic integrity above a web presence.  At the end of the session of search engine optimization, this one woman who sat behind me asked a question pretty much saying that when will it WON'T become necessary to use search optimization techniques so that the story is popular for what it is, rather than how well the people behind the story use these techniques.

Okay, it's an honorable question, with good intentions.  But when will a singer who is really good at singing become popular because she sings well, not because she's beautiful or insane?  When will a car be popular because it's a good car, not because it looks like it can go a million miles an hour?

But here's the fact though - you still have to trust the reader.  In a magazine or a newspaper, a reader is essentially forced to stick with a crappily written story, as they have nowhere else to turn to (except for maybe the television).  The reason for this is that it requires the reader to buy another magazine or newspaper to get a new story.

On the Web, there is no need to spend money to buy another source - you have the options of finding alternative sources.  So what if the first link that shows up in Google is crappy for a given news article?  Just go to the one below it.  And the one below that one.  And the one below that one.  But guess what?  Your story won't even be an option, unless you use SEO techniques to boost it up in the rankings, or at least get people to link to it in some way.

Furthermore, it is important for Journalists to trust technology nowadays, and move to the web.  Print is dying, and the reason why it's dying is not because of the economy (don't delude yourself there), but because of the presence of the web.  Hey, print never changes.  Hey, the web does.  You can get instant updates on breaking news, live streams of the event that is happening, you can get pictures that can go out the moment they were taking.  In print, the once dominant medium for the journalist, you can't do these things.  Print is an old medium that needs to be taken out and shot in the back alleyway!  It's also expensive, not earth friendly and just clumsy to design for.  It's completely antiquated.

So, that's essentially my rant regarding the conference.  At the end of the day, our little old website (which still doesn't render correctly on Macs for some reason which I have no idea about whatsoever) won an award.  Second place best in show!  Yeah!  We also won fifth place best in show for best multimedia package, for this article (which if you notice, is not SE optimized at all).

This was an article written for the 12/18 issue of the Megaphone.

A few weeks ago, Apple announced it was releasing a tablet known as the iPad. The iPad ended up being a giant iPod Touch, but with enhanced applications that make use of the bigger screen of the iPad, as well as having a version of iWorks. The only other difference is that it's running an entire new hardware (using Apple's own silicon which probably destroys the chance of someone running Linux on it). It runs an enhanced version of the iPhone OS, which means you get no multitasking capability. So, there goes the ability to listen to Pandora while writing up a Word document (or Pages document, in this case).

People range from blasé to downright angry to completely enthusiastic about the iPad.Engadget actually closed down their commenting for a good day because people were engaging in rather immature conversation about the iPad. Everyone has an opinion about it, and there are not a lot of people in the middle - people think that it's either the greatest thing since sliced bread, or they think it's the death of the computer.

For me, I was rather underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed because I wanted something that was even more minimalistic in design, like an edge-to-edge screen. I wanted something I could multitask with. I wanted something with a better name, for Christ's sake! There's no Flash, and the only reason for that is that Steve Jobs is extremely pissy and stubborn. Yes, Mr. Jobs. That one Mac that the Megaphone editors use that always break? Yeah, that thing freezes up whenever Safari is open to any page, Flash or not.

However, as time passed, I realized that Apple is simply an opportunist, a scavenger of sorts. During the presentation of the iPad, Jobs announced that Apple was trying to make something in between an iPhone/iPod Touch and the MacBook. However, believe it or not, the Apple tablet is not by a long shot the first tablet. In fact, tablet computing was spearheaded by Microsoft way back in 2001.

One thing that Apple excels at is taking an existing, dying industry and rejuvinating them. For some reason, the presence of Apple in a marketplace calls attention to not only Microsoft, but also the attention of open source enthusiasts. There were MP3 players before the iPod. There were all-in-ones before the iMac. And there were definitely phones before the iPhone. In the iPod/iPhone case, it was definitely a software issue. The software of MP3 players and smart phones before the iPhone was clunky, confusing and even worse, downright user-unfriendly. Apple, which is a god when it comes to user design, comes along, make things better, which brings about other competition. Competition is a good thing, especially in the computer business - it brings about innovation. In fact, if it wasn't for the iPhone, smart phones would still only be used by corporate businessmen and not whizkid college students. If it wasn't for the iPod, MP3 players would still be confusing little sticks that only offered 256 MB of storage and relied on a 16-character black and white LCD screen.

Once again, with the iPad, Apple is rejuvenating the barely alive tablet industry. Here's the problem however - now they are competing directly with PC manufacturers hardware wise (Dell, HP, Lenovo and Fujitsu mainly), and Microsoft on the software-wise. They are also competing against Amazon and Barnes & Noble for some reason. Who in their right minds would read a book on an LCD screen anyways? Screw the fact that the iBook app is pretty. It's still a pain to spend a long period of time reading on an LCD screen. That's why electronic text books have not been as popular as they should be! Here's the biggest thing - for the cost of today's tablet or convertible laptop (i.e. a laptop that can easily turn into a tablet), you get the tablet, an operating system that mostly everyone knows how to use and is comfortable with, a camera, the ability to multitask AND a DVD drive (or even a Blu-Ray drive!). You also get Flash support! Because it's (usually) Windows, you can run much more the number of applications in the Apple App Store. Of course, not half of them are fart machine applications. You do, however, have to do some research to make sure you're not downloading malware, though.

The biggest thing is multitasking. As of iPhone OS 3.5.3, there is no multitasking (the ability to run more than one program at once) or backgrounding ( the ability to run more than one program at once, but they are not displayed to you) are not present, and any attempt to circumvent this will result in your app being banned in Apple's App Store. Only Apple apps can have backgrounding, and they do it in varying ways. Having a single-tasking operating system on a phone or an MP3 player is okay - it is not okay in something that is trying to be full fledged computer.

This wouldn't normally be a problem. It's okay to write the iPad off as "baby's first computer." However, there are people are trying to replace their work PC or laptop with the iPad. Here's the problems with this - your Mac or PC will not have all the applications available on a iPad. Second of all, your computer is surprisingly upgradeable. You can change out the battery on laptops or change the RAM. On desktops, you can pretty much swap out the internals of one system to another. Anyone can work on a laptop or a desktop. My guess that if your iPad breaks somehow, you'll have to send in to Apple. Which is bad for you, as you'll probably have to pay somewhat. Computers, including existing Macs, you can at least teach yourself to fix, at a much lower cost than Geek Squad will be happy to bill you.

There is no reason at all for a consumer to replace their laptop with an iPad or even buy an iPad to supplement their computer fleet. There's a reason to have a phone, a reason to have an MP3 player and even a reason to have a computer. There's no reason to have an overpriced product with such a limited feature set. My current laptop is an Asus EeePC 1005PEB that I bought at Best Buy for $320. It has 10 hours of battery life. I run all the programs I need on it - Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Visual Studio 2008 and even SimTower! I can even run Windows Movie Maker, Skype, and a bevy of other applications. I can even go to websites that serve Flash content and even websites that have Silverlight content. Oh, and I can even read books, thanks to Kindle for PC. Sure, I may not always be connected onto the Internet, but I usually use my laptop where WiFi is present anyways. Do I really need to be on the internet when I'm on a country farm? Or out in the middle of nature?

Even then, the cheapest iPad is $499, and just like me, you're only on the internet if you get a WiFi connection. And guess what? You're paying $180 extra for a slower processor and an inferior (no multitasking, no camera support, less applications) OS. Good consumer choice. The only thing that will make it better is if Apple comes out to release an updated iPhone OS with multitasking capability - then maybe, just maybe, it'll be a wise choice.

To be honest though, the iPad will be successful, because it has Apple's name on it. However, I do believe that one market that the iPad will succeed in is in the education market. Schools were waiting for something like this to come along. Something that students can carry around instead of an expensive book bag, take notes, and if they really wanted to, sneak a game of Bejeweled in. But still, my point remains: There is no point for a real consumer to buy this, unless they want to show how much money they make. Let the schools buy it, save your own damn money, for heaven's sake.

Some people say that a closed App Store is bad for developers, not giving them freedom, and furthermore, the users do not have the freedom to install what they want.  This is somewhat true -to develop apps natively on the iPhone you must use Objective-C (although there are alternatives out there, such as Appcelerator or Novell's Mono-Touch).  

However, some say that that a closed application store is good for developers and consumers, because they allow for the developer's publicity, and the consumer doesn't have to worry about nasty bugs or programs that steal information.

The point of a closed App store is looking at a computer as an appliance rather than a computer.  The appliance style of thought requires a set of activities that the computer is allowed to do, rather than allowing the user to understand these commands.

While this seems bad for the user and the developer, I do believe this is the computer will end up being an appliance.  I believe this is best for the user and the developer.

A closed application store (and thus the computer as an appliance) means that for the most part, the user is safe from installing bad software, and thus ties the developer's hands behind their back to prevent them from coming out with shoddy software.  In fact, I honestly believe that Apple should tighten their app store even more to prevent subpar or buggy software from coming in.  I do believe that some of their rejections are complete nightmarish though (such as blocking a dictionary app for having naughty language).  

In the end, the user is not only safe, but also saves time - no more researching on what applications are the king in the sea of subpar apps (for an example of this, take a look at the sea of CD Burning software that is available for Windows).  Furthermore, it just works.  There's no need to worry about installation (a process that really needs to die) or worry whether or not what you downloaded is actually a rogue antivirus. 

I also believe that this is good for developers.  Yes, it removes them from having complete freedom, but that can actually pay off.  It inspires creativity from solving the additional problem of not being able to access the file system, for instance, as well as inspires more education to make their applications up to snuff.  This would increase the quality of developers, and inspire more competition in the marketplace, especially regarding price.  Furthermore, the tools are right there. For instance, with the iPad, you need to use 

I am, however, not going to engage in the doublespeak that I've seen regarding how a closed app store actually gives developers or users more freedom.  It doesn't, but it does make users more secure, and it makes developers produce high quality apps (in a perfect universe).

For instance, I asked my father to go and download Microsoft Security Essentials on his new laptop.  He asked what it was, I said it was an antivirus.  He downloaded an antivirus, but it was the infamous Antivirus 2008.  Now when I go back home, I not only get to deal with that infection, but any other infection he picked up while not having an antivirus on.  What I should've said was go to Ninite and told him to download MSE there.  While Ninite is not an app store, it's a repository of apps that are chosen by the owners of the site, and probably the best compromise of what is out there - safe, reliable apps that are chosen to be there because they are of high quality.

And as a result, I'm a bit...underwhelmed.  

The design is the same as the iPhone.  We're running off of a design for the last 3 years.  I was expecting something even more minimalistic from Apple.

Yeah, it's thin, but it's still not pocket-friendly (unless you wear JNCOs).  

It can run all software that the iPhone can run...but in a tiny square in the middle of the screen, or double the pixel size.  Which is good in games, terrible at text based applications.  The Facebook demo just looked disgusting.

This is not a paradigm shift or anything similar.  The people who know about technology are slightly turned off, but they are doing what Apple goes best - go after the people who think they are technology savvy, but are truly just following a crowd.  They are not developers or programmers, but are simply know the Apple name, understand that they provide a good user expereince, and that's it.

Why pay $499 for an ebook reader, when you can buy a great one for half that cost, AND you get free 3G (without a contract, as well)?  Why pay $499 for a tiny, 16 GB consumter when you can pay $320 for a computer with 250 GB of memory, the ability to MULTITASK (a feature that's been in OSes since the Xerox SPARC), and the ability to run much more than 180k apps (and half of them aren't stupid little "hello world" apps or fart machine apps).  Oh, and the $320 device can be customizable, and you can run whatever OS or software you want on it.  

Why pay $499 for a music player, when the $320 device can also act as a music player, or you can simply buy an iPod touch for at least 200 less, and get pretty much just a smaller version of the iPad.

The only reason why the iPad should be interesting is the fact it uses Apple's own chip, instead of something Intel or Qualcomm did.  

This device is really Apple's folly, something where there are much better and cheaper alternatives out there.  And what depresses me is that it will STILL sell like hotcakes.

Usually, I disagree with the mainstream press, but I do think the Apple Tablet is going to be big, and if it is just like a giant iPhone sans voice capability, than I think that'll be good.  I don't know if it'll be popular enough to revolutionize tablet computing - it needs to be cheap enough subsidized to do that, and especially rugged enough to survive day to day work.

This post is not about whether or not the Apple Tablet will revolutionize the industry.  This post is about predictions.  For every prediction I get wrong...I'll do something.  I'm not sure what, but I'll do something.

Name: iSlate.

Design: Similar to their current iMac line up, with glass to the edges of the device, with possibly a small bezel on the bottom.  However, I'd rather bet there is no bezel at all, so that you can orient the device in any possible way. 

Operating System: A version of the iPhone OS that will take advantage of the iSlate's increased size, and will also allow for multitasking.

Size: It'll be about diagonal 8 inches in a 16:9 aspect ratio.  It'll also be a little thinner than the iPhone, probably more similar to the iPod Touch.

Buttons: No buttons, but probably some sort of heat touch sensor on the back, similar to the sensor that the Adamo uses. 

Battery: No replaceable battery, but it will probably last for 6-8 hours on a charge.

Camera: If there is a camera, it'll be a front-facing camera.  I don't think there will be a camera though.

Back Cover: It'll be aluminum similar to what is used on the MacBook Pro.

Processor: I think it'll actually be Atom based, especially the N450.  Can you imagine the N450's battery life on the iPhone OS?  It'll make Windows 7 look like Linux.

Apps: All the original iPhone apps (except Camera), plus a book store of some type, iChat and a drawing/painting app.

Price: They will probably release a 16 GB and a 32 GB model.  The 16GB model will be $599, the 32GB will be $699, unsubsidized.

Cellular: I don't think that it'll be an exclusive device.  If it is, I think it would go to Verizon rather than AT&T, which can probably spell bad news to AT&T if Verizon also gets the iPhone.

Take these predictions with a grain of salt. I don't claim to be from the future or anything, I just like to make predictions.

Running is one of my addictions.  It is a much better addiction than drugs or Coca Cola.  The moment after you run is one of the greatest feelings ever.  You're hot and sweaty, your legs are shaking, and you feel like you've accomplished a great and wonderful thing.

Fitness enthusiasts and the gadget sector really doesn't cross a lot.  Apple took a chance in a partnership with Nike to create the Nike+iPod, which essentially allows your iPod (or iPhone) to keep track of how far you ran, calories you lost, etc.  It's a killer app of sorts, essentially because it allows you to upload your running information to the Internet, and share with the world.

To be honest, I was excited to be a Nike+iPod user when I recently bought my iPhone.  I thought it'd be a great thing - I can keep track of how far I ran, calories lost, and etc.  Amazing, right?

Well, this is one device Apple should be spurned for - which, even though the sensor was probably created in association with Nike, it still has Apple's logo on it.  I've heard that for everything with the Apple logo, Steve Jobs approves or disapproves.  This is one of the rumored reasons why the Apple's tablet hasn't been released yet (and supposedly will, soon).

Let me explain why I think Apple should be spurned for it.  First of all, I've gone through two of them.  The picture above shows both of them.  One was bought at Amazon, the other was bought at Best Buy.  One quit working midway through a run, the other one won't connect at all. 

Let's take a look at these sensors:

The front of the device shows Nike's and Apple's famous logos.  The color scheme of the sensor is quite lovely - orange and white go great with each other, and it reminds me of fitness and creamsicles.  The back of the advice shows the sensor's "Wake/Sleep" button, as well as some manufacturing information.  Made in China, serial numbers and FCC ID.  Fun stuff like that.

That little button is a switch that will either put the devices to sleep or make it awake.  Problem is that unless you have an iPod or iPhone, there is NO WAY to tell whether the sensor is asleep or awake.  From a user interface standpoint, this is horrible.  It is similar of pressing a button...and then nothing happens.  Something apparantly does happen, but there is no user confirmation.  There is no mode light, nothing. 

Using a simple toggle switch would've fixed this: instead of a button, use a switch.  Yeah, switches are ugly, but this way you don't need a light: the switch will say that the sensor is asleep or awake.  Or even better, use an On/Off pop button - On represents one state that the button is, Off represents another state of the button. 

Sure, it's not Apple-ish to have a switch, but it is NOT Apple-ish to have such a frusterating interface.  Apple is renowned to have great UI...but why does it suck on the Nike+ sensor?  Furthermore, even if Apple didn't design it, it still has Apple's logo, which means that it must've been approved by someone, whether it was Jobs or some lacky underneath him.

So, yeah.  I don't like the Nike+, and I think it was very frusterating.  But, fortunately, the iPhone has a healthy ecosystem of apps, and I found an app that is leaps and bounds greater than Nike+iPod (of course, people with iPod Touches and iPod Nanos will be left out of the dust).

The screen to the right is the "Walk Around to Activate Your Sensor" screen.  You need to walk around to activate the sensor, but this isn't good if the sensor is put to sleep.  Of course, this screen doesn't give you any help at all.  If the sensor times out, it simply either fails silently, or it just says "Oh, the sensor was not found.  Try again?".  For some reason, I had both things happened to me.  Of course, even if this screen fails, there could be a variety of reasons.  Not only is it possible for the sensor to be turned off, maybe there's something wrong with the Nike+ sensor sensor on the phone itself.  Or maybe a gamma ray hit your phone, and it's a living bieng insead of a phone.

Fortunately, with the way the iPhone app market is, it is possible to find an alternative.  And I found a great one.  It uses GPS technology, so you don't need to buy a sensor.  And there's even a free version.  I'm talking about Runkeeper.   Runkeeper will even has a nifty internet application that allows you to see where you ran, and the elevation versus the speed in which you ran.  It's actually really nifty and cool, and from a brief experience with the Nike+ online app, much more indepth.

 There's a free version of the app, along with a Pro versio for $9.99 which has no advertisements and allows you to take photos and keep track of run times.  The free version does fine for me, but this is a great little application, and this way, I don't have to deal with horribly designed little sensors.

May 2010 be bright, but before I totally wave goodbye to 2009, I uploaded the next version of WELSH.

This version, 2.0 alpha, is an exciting one as it's the first version of WELSH 2 that has all the major features (configuration, networking and a new parser) planned out for it.  The next stuff in line is simple

You can download it here, and check out the changes and bugfixes here.  A big thing to note that I figured out how to make Windows Installer programs, so now WELSH will be packaged in an .MSI.  This is actually good, as it can check dependencies, as well as install all the files to the correct places, as well as add a nice entry to the Add/Remove programs menu.  WELSH also has a new icon, that if anyone wants to make more Web 2.0, I'd be more than glad.

So, what's in store for WELSH?  The next version of WELSH would be WELSH 2.0 beta 1, probably.  Here's the features it would have: easy paths (ie, there's a variable called @HOME that takes you to your home directory, and the "cd" command can understand paths in variables), more mathematical functions (at least an exponent function, maybe a square root function), file restore, and if I have time, a function for autoupdating WELSH.  Oh, and a rewritten configuration manager, which will reduce space and make that code easier to read (because right now, it's a disaster and very hacky), as well as easier to use.

Eventually, in the future, WELSH will also have a breathfirst approach to protecting files and seeking protected files in long directory tree.  It will also have (hopefully) a history of your file navigation that's longer than 1 file, and hopefully, tab completion.

So, essentially, the only things left to implement are smaller features that are a long time coming.

Here's the roadmap:

WELSH 2 Beta 1 (aka 1500): Features more mathematical functions, easy paths, rewritten configurator, file restore.  End of January 2010.

WELSH 2 Beta 2 (aka 1800): Features an updater notifier, better protection about protected files, history and (hopefully) tab completion. Will also feature "help". End of March 2010. 

WELSH 2 RC (aka 1950): No new features, but a lot of bug fixes.  End of April 2010. 

WELSH 2.0 (aka 2000): Finished product, hopefully will be shiny.  Middle of May 2010.

After WELSH 2.0 is released, I might take some time off and make some "helper" programs, which would be a GUI configurator, as well as a program that'll go through your Program Files/Program Files(x86) folders and create aliases for the executables automatically.

Once again, WELSH 2.0 alpha is available to download here.

I even love social networking, which for some reason, people fear will replace face to face communication.  Which is just silly.

What's even more silly is the fact that people forget that what is horrific and horrible for one person is good for another.  People scream "Twitter is horrible!  You have no privacy!  Horrific, horrible, and evil!"  I don't agree with this.  I think Twitter is a good tool to have: it keeps you updated on social events, it's the quickest way to get breaking news, and it's an easy way to keep tabs on friends or people you simply admire (see my article on why I use Twitter here).  You don't have to use Twitter. Biz Stone isn't putting a gun to your head to use it.  Why the hate for Twitter than?

Why the hate for cell phones?  Yeah, you are connected all the time, but some people, like me, the technoworshiper, like this.  I want to be connected.  I want to be there in case of my friends want to call me.  I want to know what's up with events.  Do I want privacy too?  Yeah, in which case, I'll put my phone on mute.  They do have mute buttons on these devices you know.

As silly as something like cell phones (communications on the go) and Twitter (quick communication) are, they are still awesome collections of technology, as with refrigeration, the modern day oven,vaccinations, the scientific method, the washing machine, the Internet, etc.  All of these things give us new conveniences and can help the human race stay healthy.

And of course, it can also cause our destruction.

The destructive side of technology is the destruction of the Earth, and the destruction of the human race through weapons of mass destruction.  Refrigeration, for instance, requires a lot of power (which produces CO2), and a freon, which is not environmentally friendly.  The Internet requires a lot of power, as computers require power to operate.  Cell phones are made from plastic to be cheaper, which is made out of petroleum.  

Nuclear technology brought nuclear bombs.  Genetic engineering brought along biological weapons.  A lot of things really brought along biological engineering.  The Internet made identity theft easier.  Processed foods and refrigeration made us fat and sassy, making it possible for heart disease to kill us, rather than the bubonic plague. 

However, technology is neverending, and innovation is its darling tec child.  Through innovation, existing technologies are greener.  With innovation, designs make it possible to prevent malicious agents from taking over, as well as with new technologies, the preventing of maliciousness through a previous use of technology.

With technology, we kill ourselves.  But, also, with technology, we save ourselves.  And not only ourselves, but other animals and plants.  Technology will make it possible for us to do awesome things, and of course, it provides yet another avenue for the human race to kill itself.  But future technology, will eventually fix it. 

However, I don't think there should be technoworship because of how it can ruin us.  But still, technology should be revered and not fought.  The misuse of technology is just a misuse, and eventually, technology will fix the misuse of technology.