It is curious how deeply computers are entering into our life.
Think of only 60 years ago and computers were very young and as big as a room. Most of the people did not own one and did not even know what was that beeping and flashing "devil's machinery".
The high potential of computers was understood soon and they grew big (not in size!) very fast to reach the consumer market in the 80s. They were still very hard to use and the graphical interface was not so graphical at all, as input and output was still mainly text.
For a decade, computers were still in a niche market of electronic lovers and programmers, and they slowly started to enter into families only in the 90s, where one computer was enough and hardly used as well.
The birth of internet was another milestone, which potential only came out later, when bandwidth started getting larger and could be used as a better method of communication than land-line phone.
Today we have smartphones. You can bring them in your pockets, they have quad cores inside and are far more powerful than thousands of old personal computers.
They are incredibly popular and, most importantly, cool.
We use them to perform loads of small tasks and we are getting always more dependent on them. They are our map, our calendar, our camera, our newspaper, our encyclopedia and, mainly, our connection to the world. We can keep in touch with a friend almost instantly, if we wanted to.
As our dependence on technology is increasing, many people wonder if this is a good thing. People are scared that technology is making us dumber, because we let them do tasks, that otherwise we would have to do ourselves, and because we know that we have a source of knowledge readily at our hand. This would let us give up on thinking about the resolution of a problem, as it could be easily looked up over the internet.
Should we give up on technology, then? I do not think that is the right approach to face this problem.
I think the problem lies in how companies are presenting technology to us, and making it addictive, for profit. What are smartphones mostly used for? Sadly, Facebook and Angry Birds. This is a bit of a downer if you think that mankind went to the Moon with computers thousands of times less powerful than our smartphone.
Unfortunately companies are making profit over games on smartphones and I think it is a big waste, as time could be well spent to improve other aspects or make "smarter" programs, which would stimulate better our brain in a less flashy and noisy way.
Also, they should teach us to use it responsibly. Technology has a great potential for doing the most amazing things, if directed in a good direction, and this is a good enough reason to not let it stop from galloping.
This reminds me of the same question we faced with calculators. Using them will not let us practice on simple math which stimulates the brain. Are they a good tool, then? Surely they are, and thanks to them we can do a much better job of calculating, in an incredibly quicker way, but the problems arise when they are getting abused. They should not be used for calculations that can be easily done mentally and, most importantly, they should not let be used to children, who need to learn fundamental mathematics.
At the same time, calculators, and computers, opened up a whole new branch, which otherwise would have not existed: programming, which stimulates logic.
Despite popular belief, technology is not a brain-killer. It can stimulate logic, design and problem-solving skills in ways that were never found before. What kills the brain is the way we use technology, how do producers present it to us.
Computers can now do a number of tasks that we could have never imagined ten years ago. We are way closer (and in many aspects, even over) to the robots age we imagined in the past. Computers can recognize human speech and work out an answer. They can crawl the web to search for information and memorize things in a much better way than humans. Many computers already are unrecognizable from humans when chatting to some testers.
But what about the future?
What scares me most is the potentiality of computers of even programming for us, in a future, which might not be that distant. Like it happened for calculators, doing basic mathematical operations for us, it might as well happen again for programming. It is already becoming easier thanks to graphical editors making it more intuitive, and its evolution could lead to completely eliminate the intervention of the user writing the code.
A smart enough computer could listen to our speech, understand the basic functions we want in a program or a script and build it for us.
This could seem like an end to programming, but if we take the comparison to calculators again, mathematics did not just die with the advent of calculators. The same way, programming could become more accessible to everyone, when the syntactic (and logical) part will be left to do to computers themselves. Creativity would surely benefit from such a change, as everyone would be able to "program", and computers will almost be like servants, being able to potentially write programs that respond to our needs.
In conclusion, I think that we live in very unique and exciting times for technological advance and the future still holds many surprises for us. Stay tuned.
Bad Scientist is a weblog updated weekly with news and thoughts about Science, Technology and various geekery.
Showing posts with label geek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geek. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Saturday, 7 July 2012
The sad truth with vegetables
![]() |
| Bacon is out of scale |
However easy to cook they are, there will always be a meat-alternative which is tastier.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Microsoftian Rhapsody
Is this the hard drive?
Is this ram memory?
Caught in a bootload,
No escape from SCSI
Open your ROMS,
Look up to the BIOS and see,
I'm a read-only, I need no fixing,
Because I'm easy run, easy load,
Little Hz, little clock,
Any slow the boot loads doesn't really matter to
Me, WinMe
Inspired from this video.
Labels:
fun,
geek,
technology,
videos
Monday, 18 June 2012
Why scientists will never be popular
There's things that will never change, and one of them is here right in front of our eyes.
I know the news is a bit old, but I've bumped on this link which I saved in my favourites a while ago:
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=scarlett+johansson&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0
I am curious by nature and I love interpreting data, then one of my favourite services of Google is of course, Google Trends. But this search shows something obvious to any reader. The amount of queries for "scarlett johansson" was ridiculously increased when there was the news that her nude pictures taken from her phone by some hacker and published over the internet. Then, it went back to almost normal after a few days (when people obtained the pictures or could not manage to get them).
I've found this particular search query so incredibly relevant to easily explain two problems:
- Science will never be popular between the general public, as it is clear that people are interested in something else: porn. And all that comes with it, from nude pictures to light gossip between celebrities. If you ask people to name who won the Academy Awards in 2009 I am sure you'll get more right answers than asking who won the Chemistry Nobel prize in 2009. I can't even name anyone who won the ducking Nobel prize that year, figure how well would do someone not involved in science.
- Never consider anything on your happily connected-to-the-internet smartphone as safe. If people wanted it, they could easily get something you consider private and share it. And don't think that legal actions will make you justice, as Ms. Joahnsson desperately tried. Anything which is (or has been) on the internet once, is public forever.
Oh, and if you use facebook on your mobile, everything in it is property of facebook, anyway.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
Moonset and Jupiter again
Same telescope as in the previous post, different situation: waxing moon.
After some time wasted (the temptation to point the telescope to the ground and spy innocent people from the top of my house is unimaginable) I convinced myself to watch the orange setting moon a little nearer (20mm eyepiece):
And after I proved that Jupiter's moons (obviously) move and then (indirectly) that gravitational laws are true. As you can see in the pictures below, with the same telescope (20mm eyepiece) the moons have a different configurations and it agrees with Stellarium. (mouse rollover to circle the moons):
Stellarium (mouse rollover to name the moons):
After some time wasted (the temptation to point the telescope to the ground and spy innocent people from the top of my house is unimaginable) I convinced myself to watch the orange setting moon a little nearer (20mm eyepiece):
And after I proved that Jupiter's moons (obviously) move and then (indirectly) that gravitational laws are true. As you can see in the pictures below, with the same telescope (20mm eyepiece) the moons have a different configurations and it agrees with Stellarium. (mouse rollover to circle the moons):
Stellarium (mouse rollover to name the moons):
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
I've seen what Galileo saw
Clear sky, Tramontana (a Northern wind known to be very dry in Southern Italy), new moon, neighbourhood lights off: perfect occasion to dust off my brother's telescope and do some night-sky observations.
A refracting telescope, 10cm objective lens and two 34mm and 20mm eyepieces; not so bad for the Moon and planets.
I tried to spot some stars but they were too faint because of that damn light pollution, so I decided to see one of the most luminous astral bodies in the Northern Sky: Jupiter.
After some focusing, I spotted Jupiter with its prominent lighter-hued zones.
But I also noticed what at first sight I thought were some refractions/reflections. There were smaller dots aligned near Jupiter, with different brightness. They were too strange to be some optical effect, so the second assumption was: the Jupiter's moons!
That dots were quite far from Jupiter, in my opinion, to be its moons so I wasn't so sure about that, but they were four (as the Galilean moons), aligned and with different sizes.
I took a picture with my phone (one of the most difficult things in my life, but I was determined to take it) and the result is a very fuzzy and dirty image. Unfortunately the view through the telescope was much clearer and defined, but it can get the idea across (click on the image to enlarge):
After reversing and some photoshopping (or better "gimping"):
Then I immediately checked with Stellarium what kind of bodies they could be, whether Jovian moons or stars. This is the screenshot:
Fascinating.
A refracting telescope, 10cm objective lens and two 34mm and 20mm eyepieces; not so bad for the Moon and planets.
I tried to spot some stars but they were too faint because of that damn light pollution, so I decided to see one of the most luminous astral bodies in the Northern Sky: Jupiter.
After some focusing, I spotted Jupiter with its prominent lighter-hued zones.
But I also noticed what at first sight I thought were some refractions/reflections. There were smaller dots aligned near Jupiter, with different brightness. They were too strange to be some optical effect, so the second assumption was: the Jupiter's moons!
That dots were quite far from Jupiter, in my opinion, to be its moons so I wasn't so sure about that, but they were four (as the Galilean moons), aligned and with different sizes.
I took a picture with my phone (one of the most difficult things in my life, but I was determined to take it) and the result is a very fuzzy and dirty image. Unfortunately the view through the telescope was much clearer and defined, but it can get the idea across (click on the image to enlarge):
After reversing and some photoshopping (or better "gimping"):
Then I immediately checked with Stellarium what kind of bodies they could be, whether Jovian moons or stars. This is the screenshot:
Fascinating.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Incremental Backup using BATCH commands
There is an easy and geek way to make incremental backups in Windows using just the bloc notes and the command-line. There are just a few steps, easy to follow:
Copy this string into a new text file with bloc note or your favourite text editor:
Save it with the .bat extension (it can be done in the bloc notes selecting "All Files" as extension and naming the file such as backup.bat).
It's done!
If you run the file just created, a command-line will open and it will make an incremental backup of Folder 1,2 and 3 (the source folders) into Backup Folder 1,2 and 3 respectively (the destination folders).
You can remove or add more folders to make simultaneous backups.
New files in the source folder will be written in the destination folder, existing files will be kept, updated files will be overwritten, deleted files wont be deleted in the destination folder (from this the name "incremental").
Copy this string into a new text file with bloc note or your favourite text editor:
@echo off
xcopy “C:\Folder 1” “D:\Backup Folder 1” /E /H /R /Y /I /D
xcopy “C:\Folder 2” “D:\Backup Folder 2” /E /H /R /Y /I /D
xcopy “C:\Folder 3” “D:\Backup Folder 3” /E /H /R /Y /I /D
pause
Save it with the .bat extension (it can be done in the bloc notes selecting "All Files" as extension and naming the file such as backup.bat).
It's done!
If you run the file just created, a command-line will open and it will make an incremental backup of Folder 1,2 and 3 (the source folders) into Backup Folder 1,2 and 3 respectively (the destination folders).
You can remove or add more folders to make simultaneous backups.
New files in the source folder will be written in the destination folder, existing files will be kept, updated files will be overwritten, deleted files wont be deleted in the destination folder (from this the name "incremental").
Labels:
geek,
technology
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Firefox and Thunderbird Backup folders (Windows and Linux)
Making backups periodically is a very good habit.
Personally I've lost a lot of data thanks to thunderstorms, super-heated HDDs or just random broken hardware, enough to make backup of every single bit of data on my notebook.
Sometimes it's like a curse: if you don't make backups, some thunder will burn your hard-disk... and it happens... regularly.
I find very useful to save settings, especially those on my web and mail browser, that is full of themes, add-ons, feeds, bookmarks and other preferences that I wouldn't really like to lose.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird as internet browser and mail platform and I find them the most customizable and fluent software in that field.
So I'd just like to remind you to make a backup of your settings (yes, don't be lazy, make it now!). The profile folders (that contain almost everything) are located in:
Firefox
Windows XP:
Linux:
Thunderbird
Windows XP:
Linux:
A very good tool to make automatic and scheduled backups in Firefox is the FEBE add-on.
Personally I've lost a lot of data thanks to thunderstorms, super-heated HDDs or just random broken hardware, enough to make backup of every single bit of data on my notebook.
Sometimes it's like a curse: if you don't make backups, some thunder will burn your hard-disk... and it happens... regularly.
I find very useful to save settings, especially those on my web and mail browser, that is full of themes, add-ons, feeds, bookmarks and other preferences that I wouldn't really like to lose.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird as internet browser and mail platform and I find them the most customizable and fluent software in that field.
So I'd just like to remind you to make a backup of your settings (yes, don't be lazy, make it now!). The profile folders (that contain almost everything) are located in:
Firefox
Windows XP:
%APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\xxxxxxxx.default\ (note: %APPDATA% is equivalent to C:\Documents and Settings\[User Name]\Application Data)Linux:
~/.mozilla/firefox/xxxxxxxx.default/Thunderbird
Windows XP:
%APPDATA%\Thunderbird\Profiles\xxxxxxxx.default\Linux:
~/.thunderbird/xxxxxxxx.default/A very good tool to make automatic and scheduled backups in Firefox is the FEBE add-on.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
From Windows to Linux?
I haven't been writing for a while here, since I've been busy particularly with installing, using (and enjoying) Linux.
I decided to install the Fedora distribution (a free Red-Hat product) in a dual boot with the intention of using Linux sometimes and keeping Windows as the main OS. I also decided to try Windows 7 RC, so I built 3 partitions and installed each operative systems:
The reaction to Windows 7 was not so exciting as I thought. The user interface is very similar (if not the same) to Vista. Yes, it was much better than Vista under a lot of aspects, so I was almost convinced to swap to Windows Seven, even if it did not really bring many improvements from XP.
What really shocked me was the compatibility with hardware and software. A lot of programs were not working under Seven, and this is quite acceptable since it is still a RC. But what made me upset were the ATI drivers for Seven, made only for the newest graphic cards (and not for my ancient but still working Radeon X600).
Without the drivers, the "powerful" Windows 7 didn't even recognize the resolution of my display (1440x900) so I was constrained to use a crappy 800x600.
I immediately removed Seven.
Then I installed Fedora 11! In less than 20 minutes the OS was on the hard drive ready to be used, with all the components installed automatically (and the right display resolution).
There are no accurate words to describe it: flexible, light, fast, user-friendly.
I'm not planning to use Windows again from that day.
I can't list the benefits of using Linux here, it is seriously difficult to list them all!
Anyway, I'm not using Windows any more, so I'll write quickly some post about some Windows programs that I planned to write and then I think I'll begin to write IT posts exclusively about the Linux world.
Labels:
geek,
linux,
news,
technology
Monday, 27 April 2009
I'm not dead
Even if I haven't written for some time, this blog is still on, but now I'm spending the whole time to study.
I've got exams in May, and I hope to pass (decently) this first year studying physics at UCL.
For those who are interested, this is the list of the exams:
13 May - Thermal Physics
18 May - Mathematical Methods II
19 May - Waves, Optics and Acoustics
22 May - Classical Mechanics
26 May - Mathematical Methods I
27 May - Physics of the Universe
28 May - Communication Skills Talk (Coursework)
See you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












