Elgan: Dispatch from gadget fantasy land

Computerworld - Leading gadget blog Gizmodo posted a story this week that set the gadget world on fire: "Courier: First Details of Microsoft's Secret Tablet."

The post claims "Courier is a real device, and we've heard that it's in the 'late prototype' stage of development." The poster, who writes under the name "The Paperboy," doesn't even tell who he is, let alone who his source is or how his source gained the exclusive information.

The post is accompanied by a slick, computer-generated video showing a device that has somehow solved all the latency, UI and performance issues of all known computing devices. The post also features clearly computer-generated illustrations of the concept, which Gizmodo does not claim are photographs or regular video.

Microsoft won't comment on "Courier," and no other publication or blog has any source other than Gizmodo's "Paperboy." But that didn't stop anyone -- including otherwise respectable publications -- from reporting "Courier" as if it were a real product. (It also didn't stop just about everyone from claiming that the computer illustrations were "photographs.") For example:

"Microsoft developing new tablet PC: report," announced Reuters.

"Microsoft readying Courier touch-screen tablet," reported the U.K.'s Telegraph.

"Microsoft tablet snatches the spotlight," proclaimed Australia's Sydney Morning Herald.

Really? All based on a single, unsourced post from someone called "The Paperboy" and accompanied by easily manufactured computer-generated images that don't even mention Microsoft? Really? (Computerworld also published an article on online media reports of a Microsoft tablet.)

In fairness, nearly all major media stories mention that Gizmodo is their source. But should major organizations even be mentioning such flimsy rumors, given the important news elsewhere they have no space or time for? Shouldn't the headlines contain the words "rumor," or "blog says" or "may be developing" rather than "developing"?

The cause of this media tragedy is a growing confusion between the real and the unreal in our culture.

Computer-generated imagery is so dazzling, and the functioning of real technology so unknowable, that, well, what's the difference? It's all pretty much magic anyway, so why nitpick about unimportant distinctions between design and engineering, between imagination and invention, between fact and fiction?

Given computer graphic skills, I could win 'design' contests

Electrolux Design Lab held its annual design contest this week. The winners were all beautifully rendered ideas based on fuzzy, unknown "black box" technologies.

For example, the contest's winner was a device that grows meat. Just place a packet of "cells" into the gadget, press a button, and voila! Smoked salmon!

How does it work? How does it taste? Is it good for you? What happens if I put my cat in the machine? Don't worry your pretty little head about all that. Just look at that cool picture!