I think life sciences is the correct term. Chemistry also digs into that pretty heavily. Chemistry is a bit of a bridge between the two. I’ve even heard a lecture by a chemist about quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis.
I am so afraid of this happening that I’ve backed up my thesis on three different drives: my home computer, my virtual drive at school, and my USB. Right now only two of those are up to date and that’s making me very nervous.
I’m most amazed by the human brain. All this stuff comes out of a lump of fat with some chemicals and electricity buzzing around inside a bone case. Wow.
Remember back when a Palm Pilot was just a guy that spent too much time in the shower?
By taking a thousand photos of your cat though you presumably get better at taking pictures of your cat. Creativity often includes doing the same task over and over until you acquire the skill to be creative in your chosen medium.
I’m a visual artist. I create both on and off the computer. I can’t even begin to tell you how much the computer has increased my creativity. I can do things on the computer, things that I literally could not have done otherwise, then transfer them to my paintings. I’m constantly discovering new techniques that used to be impossible.
Be gentle on poor Mark: He probably thinks the Renaissance artists were superhuman geniuses who never used a camera obscura to make tracings with proper perspective or grid lines to accurately scale sketches or experimented with new paints to get colors unimaginable in the Middle Ages. He probably also thinks Albrecht Dürer’s theoretical works crippled his mind for life. It’s difficult to realize your heroes are cheating bastards.
Exactly. The standard of photography by non-experts has gone up massively since the digital revolution, from what I’ve seen.
Anyone who’s had anything to do with professional photographers would know that they take massive amounts of shots. Before digital, they went through rolls of film like water, refining both their technique in general and the specific photo they were taking in particular. The only difference now is that everyone can afford to do this.
Plus also there’s the immediate feedback thing: one of the problems with film was that there was a large time gap between taking the photo and seeing the result, which is hard to learn from. Now even my six year old can take a photo, then look at how it’s come out, then realise what he’s done wrong, then take it again correcting for the problem straight away, lesson learned.
Yup yup! I RAN to my car with mine just like I used to run home with my 45’s and play them on the mono - stacked up balanced to drop down & play one after another. I plugged a set of speakers into the cigarette lighter and hooked that little baby up. I’m in playlist heaven. Digital sound. Remember how heavy those things were? I’ve got a ratttling old jeep and there was no point in having a CD player in it - too much jumping. It’s crapped out now, but we still use it for its flash drive.
It doesn’t seem to deter people from taking flash pictures at football stadiums though, does it?
Can’t help some people.
Did this make anyone else think of that thread where we were all stuffing our wedding rings in our noses to see if they fit?
I probably have over 1,000 pictures of my cats (multiple cats, true) on my computer(s) and I don’t think that devalues them at all. What nonsense is that? It just gives me a much better chance of having some really good pictures. Cat in a cute position? Take 10 pictures from different angles, and chances are, one of them will be much better than the rest. Only take one picture every 100th time you see your cat do something cute? Probably not gonna have very many great pictures of your cat being cute. Plus I love going through my old pictures of my cats. I hate like hell that I only have a few pictures of the cats I grew up with.
I also disagree with just about everything else that guy said, but I’m not going to go into it.
I’m amazed by most technology. That we went from rubbing sticks together to this is incredible. I also freak out sometimes thinking about how much of what we have right now relies on people knowing stuff and teaching it to the next people, and on lots of people knowing little pieces of stuff which all gets put together (I doubt, for example, there is anyone alive who understands every step and process of how a computer works to the point that they could build one completely from scratch with no existing parts–or go even further, say they could do that with existing materials… could they do it in the middle of the wilderness? finding/mining/refining metals, creating plastics, etc, out of the raw materials of the Earth? Because that’s what we started with.)… Say for example that tomorrow, somehow everyone over 3 years old vanished from the planet, and somehow the under-3 children managed to survive to adulthood. They don’t know how to read, they don’t know how to operate anything… how long would it take to get back to where we are now? Even if they could figure out how to use stuff… could they repair it? Make new ones?
OpalCat: That reminded me of this quote, from Arthur Koestler:
Notice that Koestler (best known, if he is known at all, for his stirring anti-Totalitarian work Darkness at Noon) isn’t talking about a full comprehension. That is impossible given a limited human lifespan and aptitude (sorry, Bobby, but specialization is inevitable). He’s talking about taking an interest in the principles behind the machinery, simple intellectual curiosity. If I share anything with the Greens and other Environmentalists, it’s this: An uncritical acceptance of technology is just as evil as an uncritical rejection of it.
Thanks for that quote, Derleth. It’s quite profound and crystalises a line of thinking that I’ve had but never quite been able to consolidate before. I’m surprised by your last sentence though because although I find a lot of common ground with the Greens, the one area I differ is in what I see as them having an inordinate degree of uncritical rejection of all things “unnatural”.
I agree with all the technology (my first use of a computer was a University mainframe in 1972 which cost £500,000, took up an entire large room and sent your work back after running overnight!).
For me the politics has been stunning:
- the Berlin Wall coming down
- Nelson Mandela being released
- Barack Obama winning the election
I can check out satellite imagery of rain clouds in my area in almost real-time (5 min delay) on my mobile phone.
Whats next? Calling orbital bombardments with my cellphone?
Seconded.
Has the fact that things like listening to music or taking a picture have become quicker, easier and cheaper than ever before increased the amount of happiness or satisfaction people feel? Has it even increased the enjoyment out of the particular activity? I don’t think so. Listening to CDs on a home stereo system is different from listening to an Ipod, but is it less enjoyable? Has the technology answered our needs or just created new ones? A person used to being able to instantly pick a song out of 3000 at any one moment gets annoyed if that option becomes unavailable, whereas a person using older tech is happy to get to listen to a song they like even if it takes ten seconds or so (whoa!) to pick the song out of a CD shelf and load the CD player.
I still listen to music the way I did when I first got into it, back in '85 or so. I sit down and listen, concentrated on what I hear. Having music on the go, thousands of songs at my disposal, would change things, but would it truly add anything meaningful to my life? Would I enjoy music more? Like a hero of mine once said, regarding pastime: "I can’t think of anything worth doing that’s quick and easy.“Having to” repeatedly listen to whole albums has given me many favorite songs I wouldn’t otherwise have heard enough to learn to appreciate. Anticipation is, in hindsight, often a very big part of pastime thrills. Using slow media gives one a whole lot more time to anticipate the good stuff, in the arts, communication etc.
I’m just old (and ludditish) enough to vividly remember life before the internet, cellphones, mp3s, DVDs etc. Has my life become more enjoyable due to the changes in consumer electronics? No. Things like getting information on oddball interests has gotten easier, while the satisfaction of getting it has been watered down. People adapt to prevailing conditions yet aren’t happy for long, as long as new levels of technological bliss are on offer. Impatience is the biggest gift of it all, it seems.
IMO some things were better before computers and cell phones, and some things weren’t.
I think having 7,500+ songs on my iPod or computer greatly increased my musical interests. At first when MP3s started becoming available, I would pick and choose my favorite songs. But then I started finding greater satisfaction in getting entire albums in MP3 format and listening to the whole thing. Unless it’s a brainless pop group, there are usually tracks on an album as good as or better than ones you might hear on the radio.
Also, having entire artist catalogs at your fingertips is so convenient. There’s a laziness factor, if I had to carry around CDs with me all the time or find them on the shelf, I wouldn’t listen to the variety of music I listen to now.
Oh Ho the Well Fargo wagon is a comin’!!!
What amazes me is there is still no cure for cancer, the cold or runs in my panty hose.