Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:41 AM 4/10/2008, Alastair Firkin wrote: >Marc, this reply will require me more time and energy than I have now >at work, so its archived. Quick scan suggests we are in agreement and >I look forward to the fine print. I do agree that change has been >"fast" for a long time. In Radiology the 1970's ushered in an enormous >change however that had not occured in the 75 years previously. X-rays >changed and "moved", but the basic principles and the extent they >could be used in Medicine did not alter too quickly: 3 generations of >Radiologists could survive on single volume books. Ultra sound CT MRI >and advanced nuclear scanning has made the changes since the late 70's >far faster and the demands far greater "in some ways". The degree of >dedication is no different, but the scope of specialty has changed. So >its not just change, its the effect the change has. Change has not >spead up, but the effect of change has in my mind. So if you bought a >Rollei in 1950, you could and probably would still be using it in 1960 >(OK with newer f! > ilm) and even if you bought another camera, it was likely to be >similar. You had time to pick a favourite emulsion and use it for years. > >The effect of digital on the photographic market was more overwhelming >than the introduction of a new film emulsion. It really was revolution >rather than evolution. I don't think modern work forces will use >skills learnt to make buggy whips for as long in their individual >careers, just as my skills with PHotoshop Version 2/3 are now really >cutting edge now. > >So I agree the rate of change may not be so much "faster" than more >"effective". I do believe that when I started Medicine I could carry >knowledge for about 10 years: I now estimate that I would be almost >useless in 5 if I did not keep studying and I'm sure that is the same >for all walks of life. I may not have to keep as much in the front of >my mind as the technology can "remind" me, but I have to be able to >use the technology > >Cheers Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply, Alastair. The rate of technological change has never been even. The main point I was trying to make in my long and meandering post was that there is always someone being gouged by technological advancements. About a decade back, I was accused on the LUG of being a Luddite and I responded that in many regards I was one then, as I am now. (To be honest, I have never smashed a digital camera, albeit I have inadvertently bounce-tested a bunch of Leica gear over the years; but, then, I am a ham-fisted person at the best of times. Mark Rabiner can authenticate this as can Stan Yoder.) Pray, send your further comments as I would love to learn your thoughts on these matters. The universe has always been the same size but we are only now starting to understand just how large it is, and the way it works. And we do have much more to learn! Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!