Staredit Network

Well, I think that by the time we have fully computerized libraries energy wouldn't be that much a problem. It's only a problem now every few months or so.

You know what I ment though


We still have lighting problems and powerline problems. Are you saying that by the time libraries are computerized, powerlines will be obsolete?

What Im saying is that libraries should stick around not only becuase its always a SMART idea to have a hard copy of a text you are looking for.

What I'm against is keeping libraries around after they're no longer useful enough to be worthwhile. That time may not have come yet, but it will soon.

Granted, reading a book is healthier, but with all the benefits a computer screen provides I think that extra bit of ultraviolet or whatever the hell it produces isn't really a major concern.

You mean the people at all those universities which could have put solar panels on their roof if they had wanted to? Electricity doesn't have to be as unreliable as it is. Besides, if you're studying at night, then you need the electric lights to read books by anyway.

Not when you have a laptop.

You do realize that the 'the Internet isn't real life' argument, despite its popularity, is completely invalid, right?

It's not impossible. I mean, there are other ways to transmit or generate power.

It would be a lot easier to change history by writing a bunch of global files as compared to rewriting thousands of books.

What the heck are you argueing about then? Your just arguing for the sake of argueing and Im telling you its real annoying...

Drop a book, it gets wet or scratched
Drop a labtop, most of the time they break or a function of the laptop breaks.

Books can leave a wireless area, if you want to work on a laptop via the internet, you can't go the places books can go.

Not everyone does their homework at night, classes aren't always in the morning. People study in the afternoon.

Why is it invalid? Thats not the point. Think outside the box here man, you lose power - get a virus - your computer is slow - the list goes on. Computers have many problems, and once you hit one, your done. Its pretty safe to have something you can actually touch and that can't get a virus etc.

Solar panels? haha wow good one.

When I say "unhealthy", Im not just talking about some one's eyes.

And libraries will become outdated when people like you make it happen that way...

Scientists are working and succeeding at making energy be transferred wirelessly. So that particular energy problem isn't much. The range at which you can go online wirelessly away from a router or something like that is always increasing; at some point weak internet connection can be universal with one of those things placed in every building. Computer 'survivability' can also easily be changed, and I think that sooner or later waterproof laptops won't be that rare.

And then some people remember that the old version was different and other people match it up to some other files that don't agree with it, and pretty soon everyone knows the government has been trying to rewrite history and if they have any sense there's a revolution and the government gets kicked out. Okay. Now what?

You, and possibly some other people on here, seem to think that libraries should be kept forever.

Not any more!

Okay, so you can't use a laptop on the Internet in certain places. Well, you can't use a book on the Internet at all. And even off the Internet the laptop still holds an enormous amount more information than the book does.

*sigh*

The idea behind it is that there is some sort of mystical barrier between things we do on the computer and things we do not on the computer. That somehow electrons moving around in a computer chip aren't part of real life, but electrons moving around in human brains, electric lights and spark plugs are part of real life. That reading a story or the news off a sheet of paper is 'real' and reading it off a screen is somehow 'not real'.

Face it, we and the books and the computers and the magnetic patterns inside the computers all exist and function in the same universe, under the same laws of physics. None of them is any less real than any other. Using a computer may be a different activity than reading a book, but there is no special rule that says one of them doesn't really exist.

You lose power? At night, losing power makes reading just as impossible as it makes using a computer.

You get a virus? Only if you don't take proper security measures, and besides it's not like books are invincible; they can fade, be eaten by silverfish, fall apart, etc.

Your computer is slow? Compare clicking a link to page 134 with flipping through a book until you get to page 134. Trust me, the computer is much faster.

No, believe it or not, they actually do exist. Look it up.

Then what are you talking about?

Yep. Just like horse-drawn carriages became outdated when people like me made it happen that way.

This is also true. I heard recently that they managed to get a wireless power system that could run a laptop from up to several feet away, and it's only going to get better in the future, especially if they can start doing it with lasers rather than the inefficient electric fields they've been using so far. And of course, if they get ZPE power working, it's game over for the power issue.

Ha I knew it, the above statement is fact that you are argueing just to argue. Almost what ever I say, you will disagree with and this whole disscusion is pointless.

This disscusion is going no where becuase its a matter of opinion. No matter what practical thing I bring up, such as NOT EVERYONE is computer savy (virus), you can always bring up a case of some nerd who has protected his computer.

Yes, it is valid, maybe not to you. There is a big difference between physically holding your copy of "HuckleBerry Finn" and reading it off the internet.

You seem to think destroying libraries is the next step in advancing technology and that if we kept libraries around it would some how stop people from advancing technology.

Plus I would rather be able to read my book during the day and get some work done, then NOT be able to read at all becuase I relied myself so much on the internet that when a windstorm knocked out my power/cable, I was useless.

The above statement is also why a library would be good to still have around cause what if your digital library failed you the days before a semester exam? I would run to a library that, thank god, is still around.

Health: Your a smart kid, Im sure if you thought real hard you could figure out what I ment.

and in conclusion (drum roll please)

The beauty of it, is that I can still find and buy horse drawn carriages because people like you failed in destroying them... (libraries anyone?)

Well, green_meklar, what are we going to do with all those books once they're 'obsolete?' Please understand that for an academic, the very notion that books will be completely replaced by computer databases is anathema. However, we do get excited when another resource is made available online because it's convenient to not have to go to a library/archive etc. and look for it because someone else has already done that part of the work for you.

I would, however, be unhappy if I could not obtain a hard copy of a text. I just hate looking at monitors for too long and I can't concentrate properly on whatever it is I'm reading. Computers and the Internet are also such a distraction to work - books don't have games which you might get diverted in playing.

I am willing to accept the idea of 'book readers,' however - A5 paper-sized computers which you can use to access online libraries and download and read books while you're sitting on the train or whatever. You could also plug it into a printer (or better yet, it could have its own built-in) if you prefer a hard copy. It would be bigger than a PDA, but smaller than a laptop, and the screen would be designed so as to minimise eye-strain.

I appreciate your forward-thinking mindset, green_meklar, because it makes you think of ideas which you wouldn't have considered before. I like the idea of 'book readers' - maybe I'll propose it to some entrepreneur. I don't agree with your rubbishing of the 'not real life' argument though. It might be invalid in a lot of circumstances, but not in the context of social interaction. Talking to a person without any kind of middle-man is much easier and ultimately more rewarding than talking via a medium such as a computer. MSN and the like are hopeless when it comes to conveying body-language and subtle irony (to name but a few), and webcams and headsets only alleviate this problem slightly. It's not 'real life' at all. People also tend to act more like jerks if they're communicating on the Internet, because of the diminished risk of them being punched in the mouth and the fact that they can just disconnect if they don't want to keep talking. Again, it's not real life. I doubt that in the future, my fist will ever be able to come out of your screen and hit you in the face, so the argument holds true - interaction face-to-face will always be superior to interacting through a medium (not of the clairvoyant variety).

No, it is not a matter of pure preference. Computers being superior to books can be logically proven.

Something like 15% of people in the world are illiterate too. Besides, you hardly have to know lots about computers in order to read text on a computer. Hell, even updating your antivirus programs has been automated to the point where you don't really have to do much yourself.

There are some differences, yes. But they do not include one existing and the other not existing, which is the basis of the 'the Internet isn't real life' argument.

Well, only in the long run, by draining resources.

What if the library burns down, or is destroyed by an earthquake? Or, far more likely, closes for maintenance? Or other people simply take out all the books you need? You can't say libraries are infallible in terms of reliability.

Let me guess... People sitting in front of the computer aren't going out and getting exercise?

Doesn't mean they aren't outdated.

Anyway, as far as I know, all or at least almost all horse-drawn carriages these days are privately owned by someone who thinks anachronism is fun, or who rents them out to people who think anachronism is fun. If in 50 years or so people still think anachronism is fun and want to try using a library because of that, well, fine, if they can pay for it that's not really any of my business. It's when the government starts paying taxpayer money on this stuff that I get annoyed.

Some of them may end up in museums or private collections. The majority will probably just be thrown out or recycled.

I still don't understand how anyone reaches this conclusion.

If you enjoy playing the games, isn't that a benefit? Better to have the choice to play games than to not have the choice.

No, even there. Electronic society is quite a bit different from physical society, for a number of reasons, but again it still exists in the same universe and is the same when it comes to the matter of whether things are real or not.

Actually, so far people have been doing a fairly good job of solving that problem. First they thought up smileys and sarcasm tags, then they invented speech and web cams, as well as emotive actions in massive multiplayer games, and now they're starting to develop devices that can actually let you shake hands with someone over the Internet.

Besides, the imperfection of conveying things like sarcasm is just another way in which it is different, and is offset by benefits such as being able to write a whole post without the other person interrupting you, or posting pictures ('a picture is worth 1000 words' sort of idea), or so on.

omg pwned k thx

That's because you're more logical than most people. Unfortunately, everyone has moments (some people more than others) where they act illogically or irrationally. The concept of 'tradition' is the main thing preventing people from wanting to accept the disappearance of libraries. Humans display a reactionary tendency to oppose things which upset the established order, regardless of what the 'logical' action would be. You might not understand it, but you must accept that it exists. I'm prepared to accept that book libraries might disappear, and probably will become defunct even if they are kept for posterity.



Not really, or at least not on the same machine. My reasoning is that entertainment and work should be kept as separate as possible.



I didn't dispute the fact that they exist in the same universe or say that they are not real in a literal sense. They are different though, as you say, and that is what I meant to convey. I do believe that interaction in physical society is currently superior to that in electronic society. Of course there are benefits to interacting via the Internet, for reasons that you have stated. I like using irony, however, and I'd rather convey it with the tone of my voice as opposed to using a smiley. I really don't see how the minutiae of human interaction can be captured effectively by computers. The only way that I think this could be (nearly) achieved is with a virtual representation of the person to whom you are speaking, in the form of a full-size 3D projection. The addition of the sense of touch, in a feasibly realistic way, would come a step closer to a realisation of complete human interaction via computers... and open up a massive new market for the adult entertainment and sex industries, not to mention please those individuals who 'cyber.' However, the ability to commit assault and so on via the Internet would also raise questions of how to police it.



That's a pretty old article, but I accept that doctors are now experimenting with performing surgery from their homes by using computer apparatus and cameras.

I don't think that the ability to convey touch across the Internet is technologically out of reach for us, but I would question of the price of the apparatus required, and issues of compatibility and space required. I'm sure we'll find a way - adaptation is one of our greatest assets.

I have one last question: Have you ever been on SEN or another SC-related site under a different name? Your writing style and general attitude seem familiar. DrunkenWrestler, perhaps? Or Basan?

I accept that it exists in sort of the same way I accept that Al-Qaeda, earthquakes and AIDS exist. They're all real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working towards making them not real.

Well, if there's a technical reason why it's more efficient to have one computer for gaming and one for reading, okay. But as it is the computers we have work pretty well for both, so I don't see why we should not make that choice available.

Depends what criteria you're using. Physical contact has its advantages, but so does electronic communication. And one important point is that the advantages of the former have stayed the same for thousands of years, while the advantages of the latter are growing quickly as technology improves.

If that's the only way you can think of, you need to start thinking outside the box. Maybe it would be more efficient to change ourselves than to change the equipment. I mean, who's to say that tone of voice and facial expressions is the only way to convey such information? Or even the most effective way? Once we start modifying ourselves through genetic manipulation and/or cyborg technology, which we will within the next few decades, much more will become possible along these lines.

Just like everybody questioned the price of one gigabyte of disk space 20 years ago. It's only a matter of time...

I used to post on the battle.net forums, but that was under the same name. I've never heard of DrunkenWrestler or Basan. And this isn't the first time I've been accused of being someone else; certain people on the battle.net forums managed to accuse me of being at least four other people during my stay there.

I am doubtful that we can change human nature, except with significant alteration of brain chemistry. The brain is still the most poorly understood part of the human body, so I doubt that will happen any time soon. Also, equating instinctive human reactions to natural disasters and Al-Qaeda is a little harsh.



I didn't say that the choice shouldn't be available, I said that I prefer to keep my work and entertainment environments separate, as many people do.



Well, continuity is in some respects important. You may disagree, but currently the aim of people devising means of communication over the Internet, and the purpose of existing apparatus is to make bring such communication closer to physical contact. The result of this is to nullify some of the advantages you have talked about.



Obviously you can see that I am no innovator - to me the notion of cyborgs is still science-fiction, but I see your point. Genetic manipulation of humans is fraught with difficulties which can really only be ironed out through extensive experimentation. It's going to be a while before any Western society is going to allow this, then yet more time for the research to bear fruit. It could be more than a few decades, but then I suppose we are still advancing exponentially, so I could be wrong. I'd love it if you could give me some examples of new means of communication which you have come up with by thinking outside the box. How exactly would you change humans to facilitate these?



Fine, but miniaturisation can't go on indefinitely. Yes, I am vaguely aware of the potential of quantum physics to overcome these problems, but feel free to tell me how close we are to achieving this.



That's probably because your writing style is very impersonal. Sorry for confusing you with someone else.

omg pwned k thx

If they are both detrimental, then it doesn't matter how harsh it is, it still makes sense.

Again, only if you don't have a choice. The idea, at least the way I see it, is to give people more options as to what advantages they want, at the expense of the fewest possible other advantages.

Hehe...it's not as easy as it sounds. I'm talking about getting outside the current realm of human perception and experience. As in, sending meanings and emotions we can't imagine actually experiencing while still limited to our current brains (but which we can still design and implement). The changes would probably be some mixture of genetic modification, brain surgery and cybernetic implants, although precisely how it would be set up I have no idea.

Quantum computing is one of the fields in which it is very hard to tell just how much farther there is to go, mostly because we just know so little about how quantum physics works. However, there is progress being made in the field, and you can read about it in various places on the Internet, such as here.

Why am I not surprised to see green_fishdipTube in this thread?



You probably say this because of your long-term exposure to the FFF.



And that's why man invented the wind-up flashlight. As soon as they invent a wind-up laptop battery, I will withdraw this statement.



What in God's name are you doing with your books, meklar, that you're putting them in a position to be eaten by silverfish? I admit that they can fade over time and the bindings can lose their adhesive properties.



And if you read any number of cyborg stories (like mine!) you would find that resistance to any such change would likely be immense, taking the form of discrimination or some other such negative aspect of humanity.

Does that question even need an answer?

No, actually, I've heard of it elsewhere too. Apparently most science fiction writers were actually quite poor, and just went on writing because they liked it. I assume some other genres are similar.

My books aren't being eaten by silverfish. Just some other books are.

You mean sort of like how there was immense resistance to the introduction of prosthetic limbs? How people staged rallies to prevent the government from making vaccination legal? How suburban families gathered to attack hospitals where iron lungs were being used? How western society detests the very idea of improving people by educating them? I see. No offense, but I think your story does better in terms of dramatic appeal than it does in terms of realism.

Great discussion. And a ton of technological achievements I've never heard about.

I generally agree with green_meklar; books will become obsolete sooner or later and everyone should accept it. With waterproof laptops, if not already existing, not that hard to make, energy transferable wirelessly (not to mention hand-crank laptops...), and the ever-present possibility of wireless internet connections becoming universal in major cities (see my previous post), there's not much books have over computers except being generally a bit easier to use (currently for us, because we're used to reading from there. I imagine that right now, reading a book from the computer wouldn't be much fun, but I'd probably feel the opposite way if I'd grown up reading Harry Potter on a laptop). Books get distorted when dropped in water, etc. The person who said that reading from a computer screen is bad for your health because of no exercise is, frankly, undeserving to be in this forum. Guess what, reading isn't exercise either.

From a more readery and emotional point of view, on the other hand, I agree with CaptainWill. Books are more comfortable to read and can more easily be read somewhere currently. Plus, they cost less. Books feel nicer (minor, but true ), and after thousands of years of conveying thoughts and stories on papyrus or paper I doubt people will want to change their way of life so drastically; especially the older generations with all the 'computers will rot your brain', but by the time this could be implemented I doubt those people will still be around.

It's progress; When a new video card comes out, you may be emotionally attached to your old one but the new one is much more efficient (not best comparison, but you get the idea). It happened over and over. From breaking coins in half to indicate 'half a coin', we got dollars and coined money.

Here's proof that books will eventually become obsolete one day:

Does anyone here prefer scrolls over books?

No, it doesn't, because it was rhetorical.


Science fiction writers were poor because science fiction was located almost entirely on pulp magazines, but that could be an entirely different topic of discussion.


The very notion that books are being eaten by silverfish is somehow hilarious to me.


No, I was thinking more along the lines of the immense resistance to the Copernican theory of planetary motion. I was thinking like how people staged rallies to drive Jews out of Nazi Germany. I was thinking how Islamic radicals performed terrorist attacks on American targets because they were "heathens" and "infidels". Surely you realize it's not a perfect world we live in - a world rife with discrimination - and it will never become a perfect world.

Now, granted, I had a rather extreme catalyst for my story's situation, but it is still conceivable that the cyborgs of the future will face similar treatment to the Blacks of the 15th through 20th centuries.

ADDITION:

That makes me a happy panda.

The theory was that - just a theory. Not a revolutionary and superior view that will improve your lifestyle. Very few people are anti-computer as opposed to how germans were anti-jew - and those that are, who cares? It's a gradual change, not a declaration that all books shall be burned and replaced by computers.

I'm not sure if anyone actually made that claim. I was guessing that someone else had made it judging from what they were saying but I don't think they ever verified it. But yeah, if anyone is planning to use that argument, it is totally invalid for the above reasons.

Except that you can read hundreds of books on one computer.

Hehe...

I don't care why, merely that it was true is enough for the sake of my argument.

Well, I'm not sure about newer books, but many old ones are bound using a kind of glue that silverfish like to eat. If you don't believe me, read this.

You mean how they executed all the people who were thought to be heretics? Well, I don't see people doing that any more. And I don't see anyone murdering people with prosthetic limbs either.

I think he was addressing the particular issue of changing people so that they could communicate more easily over the Internet.

And... what's the issue? I don't want to use the computer cuzz it hurts my eyes? I don't want to use the computer because books are the only way to read? Something like that?

I was responding to his comment of

Yes, I know. But like I said, if you look back I think you'll find that he was talking about modifying people to communicate more easily over the Internet, not the main idea of phasing out books in favor of computers.