🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.951102014256.15543B-100000@alcor.concordia.ca>, Spirit of Contradiction <ska@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
|> On 2 Nov 1995, Peter Grogono wrote:
|> > Well, thanks for the citation, but I am not sure what you are disagreeing
|> > with.  I hope I didn't give the impression that "human nature" will be
|> > superseded by bagpipes.
|> 
|> Never thought that you did. I just get this uncanny feeling sometimes 
|> that scientists, including computer scientists, think that they can play 
|> god and create software that they believe is "useful" to humans..... when 
|> in fact, many humans have to "adapt" to software in order to use it.... 
|> which is kinda defeating the point of creating something that humans can 
|> find useful or convenient.

Technology always requires adaptation.  A bicycle is useful, but you have to
"adapt" in order to use one.  As a technology develops, the amount of
adaptation required becomes less.  Modern bicycles are easier to ride than
19C bicycles; new software is (sometimes) easier to use than old software.

But development is not always towards ease of use.  Expert users demand 
interfaces that may seem complex for beginners: this was the point of my
examples.

|> So this leads me to believe that some of these so-called "language" and 
|> "logic" courses that some people take warps some of their minds... I 
|> personally get irritated when people expect me to know what they're 
|> talking about when they apply computer logic to a human situation..... 

What good is a course that doesn't warp your mind?  I agree that reductionist
solutions to complex problems are often irritating, but I also think that 
computers and programs have helped us to understand ourselves and the world.
I am not referring to Microsoft products, but rather to robots that play
table-tennis, graphics programs that provide images that evolve in directions
chosen by artists, simulations that model plant growth, and suchlike. 

|> > It may be off the topic, but I'm getting fed up with hearing about
|> > "computer generated effects".  How long will it be before we go to
|> > art galleries to look at "brush generated effects" or to bookstores 
|> > to buy "pen generated effects"?  However fancy the tools, creation
|> > still requires people.
|> 
|> Point. But the effects generated by a pen is called "writing" and the 
|> effects generated by a brush is "art"... the effects generated by a 
|> computer is part of system software, I guess... depending on what 
|> software you're talking about. A .jpeg or .gif is the effect of scanning 
|> a painting or photo or drawing... A painting, drawing, or a written note 
|> to me is far less removed from ..... "humanness" than a program or an 
|> "interface" (inter.... face?, explain that one...)

"Computer generated effects", at their best, are the results of creative
people using the computer as a tool.  Just as paintings are the results
of creative people using the paintbrush as a tool.  Perhaps all we need
is a handy term, like "painter" or "writer", for "artist-using-computer".

Computerisation usually leads to a drop in quality at first.  The first
books typeset by computer were awful (actually, many still are, thanks to
dreadful programs with names that begin with "word").  Early multimedia
was primitive.  Eventually, however, digital catches up with analogue.

Peter