It bemuses me to say it but...wait for it....Pedro has a point. And not just on the top of his head. Technology, while it should be opening up vast new worlds of more accurate information to the curious mind...and is, is making each succeeding new generation of the incurious (read, most everyone) less and less interested with history and by direct connection, historical accuracy. While it is certainly true that the adults of today know full well the falsities and inaccuracies of the latest Hollywood regurgitations of the no more than a baker's dozen stories they have to tell, each new generation will be less and less cognizant of such omissions and obfuscations. Such is life.

Of course it is also true that "SkyNet" is due to "go active" fairly soon making all this moot anyway:-)

If we take one definition of analogue it merely means something representative of something else.
 
Therefore isn't digital representation the only thing being discussed here that is analogous to reality?  IOW digital is the only analogue in the debate as a real smack in the mouth is a real smack in the mouth rather than being proportionate according to due proportion which a digital representation of a smack in the mouth would be.
 
In terms of representation therefore 'digital' is about the best means of producing an analogue known to man.
 
This is a way that meaningless words begin to take on meaning merely through common adoption rather than having true meaning. Analog (sic) used in this context is ironically therefore only representing a concept in language in a way that is analogous to real language.
 
I'm wondering now having mentioned all that whether I'm being a real arse or just an analogue... :-)

Er...word?

yorolpal
Er...word?

Hi
Or...too many words even.
 

 
 

To no avail, unfortunately.

Jonbouy
If we take one definition of analogue it merely means something representative of something else.
...

I was thinking something like ... we have only had electricity for what 125 years or so? ... that means the word "analog" is much older than "digital", no? Like millions of years?
 
Craig will have that answer!
 
BTW, all, my apologies for the tone, I should be more "professional" and kiss ash a bit more ... but it just isn't in my nature! I just find it sad, when I look at a 45K book library of Portuguese, Spanish and Brazilian literature in Santa Barbara, that all of that paper is just toilet paper ... and that's how I feel, when you see comments like that ... and I find this tremendously sad ... like all those people will never be believed, or even understood.
 
I love movies, and art and all that, and everyone here knows that ... I live and die with them ... more than I do my own personal life, and every time someone does that, even if in gest, like Craig and Bapu do (which I've learned to let go with!), it feels like a stab ... a hard and harsh stab ... that education, in some places in this country, is not worth anything ... and that's like saying your song is not worth anything ... and that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE!
 
My play on Medea is a turnabout to the misogynist attitude towards her. If you use some of the examples, specially the inside of a room with the candelabras and pedestals, her story goes in so many ways, and she is not a monster ... she is a victim of the male manipulation world, which the chorus in the plays around her, obviously supports by calling it self the public, and it being all male! Women were not believed to have been a part of many chorus's at all, and in fact, many woman roles were originally done by men, the story of which goes all the way to Shakespeare, btw! We should not be surprised! heck, some writers had to hide the fact they were women, until the 1800's at least, because that was not acceptable and in some places, automatically made you a witch! This is still true in the Far East these days ... killing because "she's a witch" ...
 
It's just that nowadays, to me, this is not about Medea ... it's about the violation of the human spirit, and that I find not acceptable in any form. And I will die defending it ... even though some folks will never believe, or worse, understand ... any of it.
 
Sorry for the rant ... I do love you all, and you are one group that I treasure immensely. And thanks for the kind words, though my expression might not have come off as perfect as I would like ... sorry, it's the only language I can write in!

Moshkito

Jonbouy
If we take one definition of analogue it merely means something representative of something else.
...

I was thinking something like ... we have only had electricity for what 125 years or so? ... that means the word "analog" is much older than "digital", no? Like millions of years?

 
The short generalized answer, when contrasting analog and digital is this:
 
analog = a representation of something else that is continuous
digital = a representation of something else that is discontinuous

Manager = a representative of someone who is poor.
 
I wouldn't know, of course, because I'm only an American, and, therefore, too stupid to understand anything. If only there was an online representation of a person who would represent his perception of an entire nation in an extremely generalized and wildly inaccurate manner in order to demonstrate his relative superiority...

How does one represent his perception?
(inquiring mindless want to know)