In the beginnings of life, as far as we know, there were complex proteins and other molecules. These molecules eventually joined to become cells. Single cells were the apex of life on earth for billions of years. It appears that some early life forms, before what we would call cells today, achieved cooperation for their mutual benefit. This cooperation became interdependence, then dependence, then inseparability in the form of cells. Other uses of the word cell mean inseparable group. Now the complex parts of a cell, the Organelles, cannot survive outside of the environment provided by the cell and the other organelles. But, even in the beginning, the clusters and groups of complex molecules, the predecessors to actual cells, must have had an advantage over those that did not group. This biology before cells is mostly reasonable guesswork.
Once the form of the cell was well established, the next major step is considered the joining of cells into groups. Single cells spent billions of years refining the relationships within their walls and competing with other cells. A lot can happen in a billion years, and I have to assume that a lot did happen. Those cells became more efficient as the structures within them grew more specialized. New means of harvesting energy were stumbled upon, and new sources of energy were found. But from our perspective, nothing much happened until the cells starting cooperating with each other. I would assume that this was, at least in part, because individual cells had become about as advanced as they could.
The process was repeated, from a few cells grouping together to more effectively gather food, to becoming dependent upon each other, to forming creatures composed of multiple cells that could no longer operate independently. Again billions of years passed and here we are, writing blogs and reading each others thoughts from around the globe. And humans are specializing to the point that most of us would die without the support of a group. We are just starting to repeat the pattern. A few other species on earth have cooperative specialization based on gender, but humans are unique in the diversity and extent of our specialization.
Are the cells within our bodies aware of us? Are they aware of being part of a whole that is greater than its parts? This may be a loaded question, as we do not credit cells with any awareness at all. But the point is, if we were the cells in a more complex life form, would we be aware of it? I do not think we would, at least not in any practical way. And just as we are not aware of individual cells in our body, would this more complex life form be aware of us? And is this more complex life form self aware in the same sense that we are? I think that is a few billion more years out.
I imagine that we are the beginning of the next real step in evolution. We are the end of the third phase and the beginning of the fourth. I would equate us, as societies, perhaps to a simple fungus. Our spaceships, when we build them, will be seed pods cast out upon the galactic winds.
Our vocabulary often draws comparisons between our bodies and our civilizations. Look at the roots of words like corporation, body, and capitol, head. Roads and blood vessels are both arteries, rogue cells and rogue groups are cancers. It is fairly obvious that we structure our societies, in a very loose way, in the same way our bodies are structured. Our bodies have the need to transfer information and materials throughout themselves, just our our societies do. Our bodies have a hierarchy of decision making, just as any cooperative group must have. It is more inevitable than intentional.
Those who cooperate have an advantage over those who do not. Cooperation allows for specialization, and specialization leeds to dependence. Specialization also improves the advantages of cooperation. It seems inevitable that cells would group together into more complex life forms, and they did. While I think the pattern will continue, through us, into a higher order of complexity, I do not think we will ever notice.
Another reason to equate us to mold is the relative lack of structure. We are grouped by political, corporate and geographical boundaries, all of which we arbitrarily cross. I imagine that the very first groups of cells often broke up and rejoined at random. It took millions of years before they would stay bound as a group from one generation to the next. We may not be the first to start down this path. Perhaps ants and bees are farther along than we are, although on a much smaller scale.
With the cells, it probably took a few million years to achieve new life forms, followed by a few billion years of refinement. I see us as at the cusp of those few million years. Even calling us mold is really giving us to much credit. We have only been trying this specialization thing seriously for a few thousand years. If a fourth phase life form came to earth now, they would not even notice us. Just as finding single celled life forms on another planet would not stop us from thinking of the planet as uninhabited.
Given the time scales and supporting facts here, this pretty much falls into the category of science fiction. This theme has been touched on in various science fiction works, but it seems that telepathy is always involved. I think that the key here is cooperation and specialization, and while telepathy might assist that it is not essential. Just as technology might assist or, as other stories have it, technology could fade out as irrelevant after enough time has passed. One can only hope. While I predict millions of years passing before the next phase is established, most tales give it just a few thousand years until one day there is some breakthrough. I think it will be billions of years before the breakthrough notices that it happened.
Which makes this about as relevant as the origins of the universe. It is wonderful to think about, and we hope to understand, but the practical benefits are few and far between. So while this is more of a prediction than a fiction, it fails to be scientific as it cannot be verified. Maybe someone will start a new religion around it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Hard sudoku
I play a bit of sudoku, usually using a great little mac widget that generates puzzles. The puzzles are usually challenging but I have never been stumped until now. Which makes this a fun puzzle to post.
| 3 | 2 | |||||||||
| 8 | 4 | 1 | 7 | |||||||
| 6 | 5 | |||||||||
| 4 | 9 | |||||||||
| 5 | 9 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||
| 7 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||
| 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Picking a Digital Camera
I have decided on fewer features in favor of a smaller package. I am going on the assumption that, in the not too distant future, I will buy a dSLR camera with all the controls I want. So I am removing the Canon A640, Nikon P5000 and Panasonic TZ3 from consideration. Cameras that I might otherwise have liked for the added controls and range of photographic ability in a not quite pocket size.
I think I have narrowed it down to the Canon SD750, Fuji F40 fd and the Casio Z1050. The F40 is kind of riding the curtails of the highly rated F30 and F31 that it replaces in the Fuji line. There have been a few feature changes, not all of which agree with me. The Casio line seems a little unpopular, with cnet rating them low and photoxels not even considering them. But when I play with the Z1050 I like it. Both owners and reviewers seem to really like the Canon SD750. I have had other Canon cameras and been largely pleased with them, although I am not impressed with the physical appearance of the camera.
Update: After further consideration I am going with the Canon SD750. It is rumored to be very fast, and has received the highest reviews of any recent pocket camera.
A further note. I have been looking at memory cards, which are in a sad state. Many cameras support SD, or secure digital, which has been obsolesced by SDHC high capacity cards. There are two speed rating systems. The new, official class 2 4 and 6 system which is officially (on the web site) meaningless, and the older 150x style rating. I have seen cards rated at 60x, 80x, 120x, 150x and 170x. I am guessing that class 2 corresponds to 80x or below and class 6 corresponds to 150x or above. There is no indication of what you need for what usages, but the higher speeds help when recording video and audio. I assume they also help with the time between shots for large images, although that may be more a function of the compression algorithm speed. None of the cameras I have been looking at support RAW images.
I think I have narrowed it down to the Canon SD750, Fuji F40 fd and the Casio Z1050. The F40 is kind of riding the curtails of the highly rated F30 and F31 that it replaces in the Fuji line. There have been a few feature changes, not all of which agree with me. The Casio line seems a little unpopular, with cnet rating them low and photoxels not even considering them. But when I play with the Z1050 I like it. Both owners and reviewers seem to really like the Canon SD750. I have had other Canon cameras and been largely pleased with them, although I am not impressed with the physical appearance of the camera.
Update: After further consideration I am going with the Canon SD750. It is rumored to be very fast, and has received the highest reviews of any recent pocket camera.
A further note. I have been looking at memory cards, which are in a sad state. Many cameras support SD, or secure digital, which has been obsolesced by SDHC high capacity cards. There are two speed rating systems. The new, official class 2 4 and 6 system which is officially (on the web site) meaningless, and the older 150x style rating. I have seen cards rated at 60x, 80x, 120x, 150x and 170x. I am guessing that class 2 corresponds to 80x or below and class 6 corresponds to 150x or above. There is no indication of what you need for what usages, but the higher speeds help when recording video and audio. I assume they also help with the time between shots for large images, although that may be more a function of the compression algorithm speed. None of the cameras I have been looking at support RAW images.
| Camera | Censor | Lens | Focal | Screen | Size | Speed | Features |
| SD750 | 7.1m 1/2.5" | 35-105mm 5cm | F2.8-4.9 | 3.0" 230k | 3.4 2.1 0.7 6.0oz | ? | OS |
| Z1050 | 10.0m 1/1.75" | 38-114mm 10cm | F2.8-5.4 | 2.6" 115k | 3.6 2.2 0.9 5.8oz | ? | MF,AP,SP |
| F40 | 8.1m 1/1.6" | 36-108mm 7cm | F2.8-5.1 | 2.5" 230k | 3.8 2.3 0.9 6.4oz | ? | FD |
Looking at Digital Cameras
I have been looking into buying a new digital camera. Something that fits in your pocket, or just a little bigger. I have searched various review sites and this is what I came up with. Remember that camera review information is only good for about six months.
There are a few basic things we look for in a camera. Image quality is probably the most important thing for the most people. Cameras tend to vary in quality for outdoor, indoor and action shots. Outdoor daytime shots are the easiest, and it gets harder as the subject moves faster or the light gets dimmer. Image quality includes things like the effective number of captured pixels, the maximum zoom and focal range, and highest usable ISO settings.
Another general comparison is the size, shape and weight of the camera. Most cameras of a given class are similar, so this is more picking the class of camera. Still, a smaller camera will usually beat a larger when all else is about equal. And all else is often fairly close.
A big issue is the speed of the camera. Speed comes into play at every stage of camera use. How long between turning it on and taking the first shot, assuming the settings were good. How long between shots. How long between hitting the button, focusing, and actually capturing the shot. Some cameras are fast in a few areas, other are generally fast or slow. A fast camera is much more satisfying, as long as the shots come out.
And finally I will lump in everything else. Features like image stabilization, manual focus, burst mode, aperture and shutter priority. Things that matter to some people and not others, that are sprinkled almost at random through all the camera models. For me, manual focus would be nice. All the cameras I looked at could capture movies, but being limited only by available space is important. Time lapse recording is showing up in a few models and sounds fun.
The best place I found to look at the specifications of cameras such as the lens, screen and body size and weight was dpreview side by side comparison. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp allows you to see up to 10 cameras and has most models. But there are some missing details, so for specific features be sure and check the manufacturers site. The reviews are very in depth, but it takes a while for some cameras to be reviewed. No complaints for a free site, but you will have to look elsewhere for in depth reviews of recently released cameras.
So I looked at reviews, both from reviewers and owners, at various sites. I also summarized all the details from dpreview for what I was interested in, but I will leave that to you. The cameras I looked at are roughly pocket size or a little larger, released in the past 12 months, priced between 200 and 400 USD.
cost is a rough estimate of street price
cnet has reviews and consumer ratings
dpreview has consumer ratings
newegg has consumer ratings and price
amazon has consumer ratings and price
costco has price but is fairly picky
digitalcamera-hq has ratings
photoxels has a pass fail on best cameras
* is an editor pick
Each camera vendor has a bunch of letters and numbers that have some semblance of meaning. Here is a quick summary of the order of model letter names from novice to advanced. The numbers within a letter are usually not as clear. To decipher the numbers, look at all the cameras released at the same time by a specific manufacturer, and compare the prices of those.
There are a few basic things we look for in a camera. Image quality is probably the most important thing for the most people. Cameras tend to vary in quality for outdoor, indoor and action shots. Outdoor daytime shots are the easiest, and it gets harder as the subject moves faster or the light gets dimmer. Image quality includes things like the effective number of captured pixels, the maximum zoom and focal range, and highest usable ISO settings.
Another general comparison is the size, shape and weight of the camera. Most cameras of a given class are similar, so this is more picking the class of camera. Still, a smaller camera will usually beat a larger when all else is about equal. And all else is often fairly close.
A big issue is the speed of the camera. Speed comes into play at every stage of camera use. How long between turning it on and taking the first shot, assuming the settings were good. How long between shots. How long between hitting the button, focusing, and actually capturing the shot. Some cameras are fast in a few areas, other are generally fast or slow. A fast camera is much more satisfying, as long as the shots come out.
And finally I will lump in everything else. Features like image stabilization, manual focus, burst mode, aperture and shutter priority. Things that matter to some people and not others, that are sprinkled almost at random through all the camera models. For me, manual focus would be nice. All the cameras I looked at could capture movies, but being limited only by available space is important. Time lapse recording is showing up in a few models and sounds fun.
The best place I found to look at the specifications of cameras such as the lens, screen and body size and weight was dpreview side by side comparison. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp allows you to see up to 10 cameras and has most models. But there are some missing details, so for specific features be sure and check the manufacturers site. The reviews are very in depth, but it takes a while for some cameras to be reviewed. No complaints for a free site, but you will have to look elsewhere for in depth reviews of recently released cameras.
So I looked at reviews, both from reviewers and owners, at various sites. I also summarized all the details from dpreview for what I was interested in, but I will leave that to you. The cameras I looked at are roughly pocket size or a little larger, released in the past 12 months, priced between 200 and 400 USD.
| Camera | cost | cnet | dpreview | newegg | amazon | costco | dc-hq | photoxels |
| Canon PowerShot SD750 | 260 | 7.8 (8.0) | 9.5 | 10.0 (260) | 9.0 (260) | (290) | 9.5 | + |
| Canon PowerShot SD800 IS | 300 | 7.8 (7.9) | 8.5 | 10.0 (320) | 9.0 (305) | (350) | 9.0* | |
| Canon PowerShot SD850 IS | 400 | 8.0 | 8.0 | (400) | 8.0 | + | ||
| Canon PowerShot A640 | 280 | 7.6 (8.1) | 8.5* | 10.0 (280) | 9.0 (260) | (290) | 9.0* | |
| Casio Exilim V7 | 300 | 6.6 (5.4) | 8.0 | (330) | 7.0 (295) | (380) | 7.0 | |
| Casio Exilim Z75 | 170 | 6.6 | 8.5 | (180) | 9.0 (170) | (205) | 9.0 | |
| Casio Exilim Z1050 | 250 | 6.6 | 9.0 | 8.0 (250) | 9.0 (220) | (270) | 8.0* | |
| Fujifilm FinePix F40fd | 230 | 7.2 | 8.0 | 8.0 (240) | 9.0 (235) | 8.0 | + | |
| Nikon CoolPix S50 | 250 | 7.2 | 9.0 (250) | 9.0 | + | |||
| Nikon CoolPix P5000 | 340 | 6.9 (8.5) | 8.5 | 9.0 (340) | 8.5 | + | ||
| Panasonic Lumix TZ3 | 290 | 7.0 | 8.0* | 10.0 (290) | 9.0 (315) | (320) | 9.5 | + |
| Sony CyberShot DSC-N2 | 300 | 7.0 (8.2) | 7.5* | 10.0 (320) | 9.0 (320) | |||
| Sony CyberShot DSC-T100 | 370 | 8.2* (8.0) | 8.5 | 8.0 (380) | 8.0 (360) | + | ||
| Sony CyberShot DSC-W200 | 370 | 6.4 (8.8) | 9.0 | (360) | 7.0 (370) | 7.5 | + | |
cost is a rough estimate of street price
cnet has reviews and consumer ratings
dpreview has consumer ratings
newegg has consumer ratings and price
amazon has consumer ratings and price
costco has price but is fairly picky
digitalcamera-hq has ratings
photoxels has a pass fail on best cameras
* is an editor pick
Each camera vendor has a bunch of letters and numbers that have some semblance of meaning. Here is a quick summary of the order of model letter names from novice to advanced. The numbers within a letter are usually not as clear. To decipher the numbers, look at all the cameras released at the same time by a specific manufacturer, and compare the prices of those.
| Canon | SD TX A S G D |
| Fujifilm | A Z F E S |
| Kodak | C O V Z P |
| Nikon | L S P D |
| Olympus | FE AW SP E |
| Panasonic | L FX TZ LX FZ |
| Sony | S T W H R A |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)