Steve,
You're quite right about the availability of DIY items IF you're motivated to look for them. Without the (dare I say it?) Radio Shack kits, Edmund Scientific catalogs, and Amateur Scientist articles how many young people will even develope an interest in DIY projects? The internet could even work against developing DIY interest given the wide availability of emulators and simulators on the web.
I've been going to hamfest for a LOT of years and one thing that I've noticed is that there's practically zero interest in building stuff any more. Parts and tools that used to be very sought after now go begging.
My $.02 worth,
Joe
At 08:01 PM 4/24/02 -0700, Steve wrote:
>I don't know if this is true. In the last five years,
>I've found projects and parts I would never have dared
>to imagine doing or owning, as a result of the
>Internet and Google. I lived in a major city as a kid,
>and even its large library was nothing compared to an
>Internet account and a used $200 PC. I like to point
>out that Issac Asimov imagined that people would have
>a terminal in their homes from which all information
>would be accessible. But his books were generally
>written as though they were hundreds of years in the
>future. This is better, and this is right now.
>Collaboration across great distances is easy, and
>projects can be done by virtual groups - like the one
>I've read about in this group reconstructing source
>code from an AIM-65. I didn't even KNOW anyone in my
>city interested in things I was interested in, and I
>wouldn't have known how to find them anyway if there
>were any.
>
>I do miss the "Amateur Scientist" atricles in
>Scientific American. The projects often had real
>scienfic merit, were all absolutely ingeniously
>simple, and were occasionally mind-bogglingly
>dangerous, i.e., "fun". I built an infrared laser in
>high school from one of those articles so powerful I
>took it apart 1/2 hour after finishing it! Invisible,
>and capable of shattering glass while reflecting of
>off surfaces that didn't seem to be reflective. Wow!
>
>As far as the items listed at the bottom of the
>article, I have one word to say: Google. I found all
>of this stuff in 2 minutes 20 seconds, on a dialup -
>and several sources to choose from.
>
>Still, I do wish that there was a place for the
>"generalist" to go on the Internet. What the Internet
>needs is an authoratative and often-updated list of
>common mechanical and electronic surplus supplies for
>hobbyists.
>
>
>
>
>
>--- "Douglas H. Quebbeman" <dquebbeman_at_acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> I got this URL for an article in Scientific
>> American that seems
>> > appropriate for this group :). The last paragraph
>> reads:
>> >
>> > "Evidently, the something-for-everyone model
>> epitomized by Heathkit and
>> > the Amateur Scientist column can't compete
>> anymore. Specialized sources
>> > and Internet newsgroups cater to each skill level.
>> But much of the
>> > mentoring and serendipity that the diverse
>> community of amateurs offered
>> > has been lost. It is hard not to regret its
>> passing."
>>
>> Well, I didn't know this about Edmund Scientific.
>> Crap. I've
>> been looking for the older catalogs, now even the
>> more recent
>> ones I've got will become collectable unobtainium.
>>
>> Where will I buy water wetter?
>> Where will I buy Nitonol wire?
>> Where will I buy flock paper?
>> Where will I buy cheap assortment of lab glassware?
>> Where will I buy an ultrasonic cleaner?
>> Where will I buy a good Chinese microscope?
>>
>> and so on...
>>
>> <sob!>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
>http://games.yahoo.com/
>
Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 06:15:53 BST