For example, the first definition offered up by Google is, "the application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives." Well that's a bit dodgy, isn't it? It contains the weasel-word "especially", which is a red flag that the author doesn't really know how to explain it. If there is an accurate description, let's hear it. Let's not start talking about when it sounds better. Besides, I'm not so sure that all technology is the result of science. We had glow-in-the-dark watches before Marie Curie applied science to it. She figured out that the glow that these watches emitted was due to radioactivity. We had an even better understanding of it after she and her husband died of radiation poisoning, but that's another story.

The next definition of technology is, "electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group." Well gosh, let's take that example of that glow-in-the-dark watch again: Was it electronic? Nope, Madam Curie had to wind it - no battery powered watches back then. Was it digital? Well, there may very well have been digits on the face of the watch, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, she had one of those swatch-like faces on her watch that had no numbers at all - just an hour hand and a minute hand moving in a distinctly analog (read: Non-digital) way. So, this definition does not pass muster. It doesn't cut the mustard either, for those of you who think cutting-the-mustard makes any more sense than passing muster.

The third definition given is, "the body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials." Oh yeah, that's what I think of when I hear the word "technology" - arts and crafts. I don't think so.

There are many more definitions that are equally unsatisfying, but I have finally come upon one that makes sense. It's short, accurate and written by one of my favourite social commentators, Douglas Adams: "technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet." There we have it. The truth.

It feels right, but let's test it. The glow-in-the-dark watch? Well, it kills people, so we can safely put this in the "doesn't work yet" category. Computers? They definitely don't work yet and I'm sure you can find some examples of that fact yourself. Yes, even you iMac users know this to be true, admit it. Speaking of Apple, how about those great little iPods? Well, their infamous batteries are well-known to die very shortly after the warranty is up. Good thing they seal them in to keep you from replacing them. So OK, this technology works from Apple's point of view since it causes you to buy replacement iPods after they get you hooked, but from the consumer's point of view, I'll still put this in the "doesn't work yet" category.

All right, how about something that's been around for a while, like a hammer. Hammers are created by humans just like cell phones, but they tend to work. You hammer a nail, and it gets driven into the wall, you hammer your thumb, and it turns black. Hammers never seem to fail at hammering. They work and are therefore, by our definition, not technology. In fact, if you are ever offered a hi-tech hammer, I'd say stay away and be very suspicious of what sort of "improvement" it might have had to make it "hi-tech". It might kill you.