Why digital is not photographic

"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

I should add that there was a time when "train" meant a wagon train. (I
came across this in a contemporary account of Revolutionary War soliders
raiding a "British train" - no railways yet!)

The word shifted meaning as the technology changed.

Train still does mean wagon train. While typically applied
to locomotives, techncally, _railway_ means locomotive travel,
while wagon train means wagon train. As I say, the vernacular
idomatic expression is rather meaningless, scientifically.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

[... I've screwed up my filters so badly I cut attributes... sorry!...]

Then I say we should apply the word "astrology" to the
scientific study of the universe. Why should we call it
astronomy and make that distinction?

Ah, you must be speaking of Cosmology. See, we have it covered!

(The answer is four.)

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

You can say you want the word "photography" to be reserved for
photochemical
imaging, which was its original meaning...

...but other people have already taken it and shifted it out from under
you.

Words change meaning. The time to object to this particular change was
about 15 years ago.

Something that inexplicably escapes your Ph.D: I'm talking about
the differences in how the _porcesses_ are being defined. Not
semantical word play. The processes are radically different,
both in science and result.

Tom put his finger on what's happening here; it is about discourse, and
Discourse Analysis is an effective way to frame our discussion. Meanings and
conventions may change, and to handle that you put the terms into contexts.
Any further discussion should be directed to What One Means, and not an
assertion of superiority of an old term in a new context.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

You can say you want the word "photography" to be reserved for
photochemical
imaging, which was its original meaning...

...but other people have already taken it and shifted it out from under
you.

Words change meaning. The time to object to this particular change was
about 15 years ago.

Something that inexplicably escapes your Ph.D: I'm talking about
the differences in how the _porcesses_ are being defined. Not
semantical word play. The processes are radically different,
both in science and result.

Tom put his finger on what's happening here; it is about discourse, and
Discourse Analysis is an effective way to frame our discussion. Meanings and
conventions may change, and to handle that you put the terms into contexts.
Any further discussion should be directed to What One Means, and not an
assertion of superiority of an old term in a new context.

On 10/15/2004 1:04 PM jjs spake thus:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

[... I've screwed up my filters so badly I cut attributes... sorry!...]

Then I say we should apply the word "astrology" to the
scientific study of the universe. Why should we call it
astronomy and make that distinction?

Ah, you must be speaking of Cosmology. See, we have it covered!

(The answer is four.)

Wrong. The answer is 42.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

On 10/15/2004 1:04 PM jjs spake thus:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

[... I've screwed up my filters so badly I cut attributes... sorry!...]

Then I say we should apply the word "astrology" to the
scientific study of the universe. Why should we call it
astronomy and make that distinction?

Ah, you must be speaking of Cosmology. See, we have it covered!

(The answer is four.)

Wrong. The answer is 42.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky