Gattaca always struck me as actually a surprisingly humane and feasible way of going about accelerated evolution. As it is, certain traits which are patently undesirable are widespread in society--in particular mypoia comes to mind. Something like 60% of Americans need some form of vision correction, and I know that I'm almost legally blind without my glasses. Wouldn't it be nice if, all other things being equal, we could identify the genes that cause myopia and just exclude them from candidacy for IVF? I know that I'd certainly like to have 20/20 vision and even though my own embryo would obviously have been excluded (had it undergone this sort of selection process), whatever kid my parents would have had wouldn't have had to deal with being excluded from pursuing "astronaut" as a career.
The thing about Gattaca that was most feasible was that it was simply an artifical way of increasing the potential for physically fit offspring (and of course if we can find correspondences between certain gene sequences and intelligence I presume parents want smarter offspring), but that the chance existed anyway. My chief reservation about genetic engineering of humans has long been that if we can simply twiddle bits for whatever traits we want eventually you'll get a divergent, superhuman species--why not for instance "write in" some traits like the abillity to see as well as a cat or for skin chromatophores or any number of other things that would fundamentally render the genetically engineered nonhuman, which on a social level is unfeasible--the "norms" would just instinctively know that if a species fundamentally superior to them were allowed to flourish it would inevitably supplant them as the evolutionary victor.
But Gattaca's mode of genetic engineering simply means that those embryos chosen are fundamentally human, merely best suited to those evolutionary prssures of which we are already aware--better to have physically fit than weak offspring, 20/20 vision than myopia. Although the movie was chiefly about the difficulties for the last generations of nonengineered, the Gattacan slogan about one's children, that they're "you, just the best of you" is intriguing. It seems to me that it should be given serious consideration, but that the chief thing of whic we should be wary is its dependence on class. In Gattaca nearly everyone was engineered, but obviously the introduction of such techniques will mean as some other posters have pointed out that the rich will also be the ones with the "best" children. If people didn't have enough reason to hate plutocrats already I imagine that this situation would prove dangerously social unstable.
Rather, the way to introduce such a technique would be to have it universally available and government subsidized (yeah, yeah, that's hardly feasible. This is pure fantasy anyway, and I'm probably insulting enough ehticists as it is, for which I'm sorry, this isn't meant to be flamebait). Indeed, such a system would have to be mandatory if it were available at all, since parents would be doing a disservice to children by allowing them to be born "inferior" (according to whatever traits are determined societally desirable, and there are some. there's just no reason to want your child to be myopic) to their peers (again one of the innumerable ethical minefields here as to how to reasonably enforce such a mandate). Parents will always want the best for their children, and I think that you could expect enough people to adopt such a system to make it universally viable within about three generations.
The thing to remember about Gattaca is that overall most people were happier--they were healthier, more physically fit, less pronde to disease, they lived better lives--than they would have been otherwise, and THAT's the eventual goal of the system. The difficulty is inevitably in the transition, and it may be insurmountable, but it may not. Just so long as we can count on the instinctive desire to have healthy children there will be a motivation to make sure that they are as well-sui
Question: why is autism associated with this kind of savantism? Granted there are 'normal' geniuses, but it seems like this sort of genetic brilliance is exactly the sort of thing that could be developed--ideally without autism--using gener therapy and modern genomics. Anyone remember the Orson Scott Card novels where the planet of Path is ruled by a class of people genetically engineered for superintelligence and obsessive-compulsive disorder, although the one could be separated from the other?
It seems that the comparatively extravagant cost of free WiFi versus the number of people who can't even even afford a computer in Philadelphia puts into question why this should be a primary initiative. I agree with the goals in principle but wouldn't those tax dollars do a lot towards helping city schooling? Just a thought.
Goodbye, Hubble, from all of us. Like many an upstanding nerd I spent my youth wanting to be an astronaut (not like I still wouldn't jump at the chance) and albeit like many my dire need of glasses, among other things, disqualifies me for the position, you brought space closer to all of us even if we couldn't necessarily be there in person. May the spirit of pure science you emobdied continue and may the world not forget that it's programs like NASA and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake that makes humanity great.
Terrorist Attack? Put this in perspective. As a symbol and a demonstration of the relative laxity of certain aspects of the American security net 9/11 was devastating. But statistically 2,000 people is fewer than we lose on a monthly basis to car accidents. If there's one thing that past governments have demonstrated (not to invoke Godwin or anything) it's that if you give them the power, they will take it, and hang responsible use *cough*McCarthy*cough*. The more America lets itself quietly give up civil liberties--particularly on the domain of the internet, where the only parties with a vested interest in covering their activites for the sake of a conspiracy will find relatively easy ways around surveillance, the more this country ceases to be worth living in. Who wants absolute security at the expense of being arrested and helf without charges indefinitely? (which is now legally feasible at the government's discretion. Taking reasonable precautions in the name of security is common sense, but with the best military in the world and more security legislation than is healthy already passed, this is nothing we need, not now, not ever. I'd rather sacrifice the perceived security bonus and instead continue to live in a country worth ilving in with unrestriced access to a venue whose primary purpose is free discourse--exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect.
That was the point. With Mulder out the picture Scully, his former associate, took his place as the person who had experienced all the phenomena of the X-Files and was thus more willing to concede a supernatural cause to ostensibly supernatural phenomena. Doggett was written to fill the void Scully left as the previous "rational one." Doggett may have been a poorly done character, and goodness knows that extraneous female agent they brought in as Scully's associate was awful, but the point is that as he was written Robert Patrick did a good job of portraying him and didn't half-ass it like almost everything else was half-assed in the later seasons.
he got blown up by a hellfire missile from a helicopter in New Mexico in the unredeemably abysmal (well, except for the fact that it had Mulder) finale. He is, at long last, dead.
Although I love the show and I think that Robert Patrick honestly did his best as John Doggett to live up to the series during the seasons after Duchovny left, I have to say that the quality of the episodes and and absurd continuity of the plots winevitably went significantly downhill. Frankly, without Fox Mulder the X-Files jumped the shark, big time. By the finale I was just hoping for some closure to what had once been an amazing show and now just wasn't worth it any more.
I think that it's going to be tough to make any sort of effective movie, especially consdiering the ridiculous "super-soldier" motif we were left with, the complete lack of Mulder during the last seasons, the killing off of such key characters as Cancer man and the Lone Gunmen (easily some of the best side characters of any show, ever), and the commercial flop the last movie had. I mean, I wish Duchovny and Carter luck, and lord knows every nerd worth his salt enjoys looking at Gillian Anderson, but I just don't think this is going to work.
--Sparks
For all those of you whose first Dark Forces game was Jedi Outcast, you should really go back and play the prequel, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2. This was one of the very first modern FPSes--Full polygonal 3d, and freelook (also as a result of playing it I'm now that one guy who always has to invert his mouse y-axis, but that's another story). But more than that, that game was a work of art. Jedi Outcast had some good levels, some of which were even quite large (most of the levels on Desann's Star Destroyer are actually about par with those of the original JK), yet nevertheless tended get fairly tedious and weren't especially visually interesting--just kinda the same uninspired textures and big, boring rooms.
But the levels in Jedi Knight were absolutely epic in scope. It remains to date a paragon of excellent level design. Using a comparatively primitive engine, LA did a lot with a little--and it showed on every level. The dialogue and Kyle's wise-cracking comments (cinematics for instance were actually done using real actors) made for a totally abosrbing Star Wars experience, moreover with a completely original plot, not just a rehashed first person shooter with a lightsaber and a brand name stuck on.
One of the earliest games where you actually got to play a Jedi and use a lightsaber, (holy cow! this is so cool, cried out all my SW fan genes) it really embodied the sort of standards LA set for itself with other games like Grim Fandango or X-wing / TIE Fighter or any of the other titles that had previously made the name "Lucasarts" synonymous with quality. Sorry about the rant, but for anyone who thinks JO or, god forbid, JA is the pinnacle of Star Wars FPSing, do yourself a favor and pick up Jedi Knight for $10, it's worth it.
/fanboy rant about the "good old days"
P.S. -- came out during the dark age of the mid nineties. it wasn't all bad.
As it currently stands, the concept of an ID "card" isn't too radically different from a photo ID--the human face is a fundamentally unique and wholly recognizable factor, and this would just be incorporating more data to form a more accurate and complete picture (don't get me wrong, I feel that this step is unnecessary and can lead to tremendous potential for abuse. It's the first step down a slippery slope towards ever less privacy). But what's especially worrying is the potential for wireless biometric ID systems. You have on the one hand Big Brother constantly able to keep tabs on you, anywhere (whereas with a card you can just refuse to patronize places requiring it's use and, again, it's not a huge departure from a driver's license), which will inevitably lead to tighter and tighter control just because the government can, though naturally hyped-up concerns like terrorism or sedition will be used as justification. Or perhaps even worse for joe average would be the potential for targeted advertising. Remember in "minority report" where Tom Cruise walks into a store only to have personalozed advertisements fly at him based on his biometric ID and past buying records? This currenttrial might actually as it stands have some legitimate applications (I certinaly, for instance, want access to nuclear facilities to be as secure as possible), but it's our responsibility not to let it become ubiquitous and especially not wireless, in which case privacy as we know it could essentially ceased to exist.
Parent makes a good point, and this is clearly one of those ventures where clearly the advancement of technology is going to be a degree inversely proprtional to safety measures taken. But there's arguably something to be said for people's abilities to take risks if they want to (for instance, test pilots). We don't want space innovation in the private sector to become synonymous with "deathtrap," and certainly government projects have to be held to strict standards, but as far as proof-of-concept goes, I know I just wouldn't feel nearly the sense of adventure if the outcome were the wholly guaranteed result of some plastic-fantastic safety first project that would undoubgtedly costs twice as much and take twice as long as something else with a more moderate (though still, as parent points out, quite reasonable), risk factor that might lead to quicker improvement and design. This country continues to do its best to prevent us from being held accountable for spilling coffee on ourselves (*cough* McDonald's case *cough*), but it seems as though a renewed interest in the space program would also be helped by instilling it with more of a sense of risk for those involved, that is, to give it the appeal fo the old style, rugged-individualism wild west, the same sort of ideals that characterized the first US-Soviet space race and led to such rapid and effective development in both nations. Don't sacrifice safety, but don't turn something innovative and potentially vibrant into something humdrum.
Just my 2 cents, and chock full of holes I know, but like all good nerds I grew up wanting to be an astronaut (goddamn lack of 20/20 vision), and it was always the image of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin launching into the unknown that appealed to me, not the idea of "routine" (as much as any spaceflight can be) shuttle flights that no one ever bothered to watch. Again, sorry for all those in the field whom I've doubtless offended, IANA NASA employee, I'm just bitter about that.
I heartily share in the depression many feel about much of slashdot's "willful ignorance," or at least curt dismissal, of envoronment studies citing global warming as a clear and present danger. What I've never gotten is why they so immediately cite bias, just because I don't get what thos of us who see global warming as a danger stand to gain through our "doomsaying." We're employed just like everyone else , we live with the same realities, what do environmentalists stand to gain by telling everyone that we have to drastically change our lifestyle for the sake of the environment? It's not like the majority of us stand to make any money off of it or benefit directly except for preventing catatrophic climate change. The point isn't that the economy is utterly worthless and we should all go out and join PETA, it's that global warming does and will continue to affect both ourselves and those who disagree with us ever more seriously, and that economic concerns shouldn't be disregarded but should be rendered secondary to the wellbeing of the biosphere we all have to share.
We're not out to raise rabble for its own sake, it's just that the issue isn't one we can write off whatever arguments you want to make about the exact ratio of natural to man-made contributions to climate cycles. Better to act now and in the increasingly unlikely event that that would be wrong write off the loss and enjoy the new technology developed in the meanwhile, than look around in 2100 and realize we can't do anyhting but turn up the AC.
Come on, think about it. He's got everything: A swank suit, the will to stand up to the big guy, and a/. constituency so fanatically devoted that they'd sell their own kidneys. Definitely a penguin who knows where his towel is.
Clever Solution
on
Saving Huygens
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It looks like the relative velocity of Cassini to Huygens actually *was* high enough to lend a singificant Doppler shift, so correspondingly the data rate was massively compressed--like the frequency of a racecar coming towards you getting higher and higher, except in this case its bitrate instead of sound. The antenna was only designed to "listen" for a fairly static bitrate --like if once the car got close enough and the sound frequency high enough you just stopped hearing it. So instead they're altering the flightpaths so that Cassini is now far enough away from Huygens that the broadcast vector is mostly perpendicular, with minimal Doppler shift -- think about standing very far away from the racetrack instead of right in front of the car. The total distance between you and the car changes by much less, so you hear more of a constant hum than a higher and higher frequency, analogous to the drone of a jet plane passing far overhead. Because the Doppler shift is minimal, the antenna can now receive data at a nearly constant bitrate it can handle. Very nicely done.
A great Disturbance in the Force...
on
Star Wars TV Show
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...As if the voices of a million Star Wars fans suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced...
Just wondering why Isopropyl is allegedly bad for cleaning LCDs? It seems like a volatile, inert solvent is exactly the sort of thing you would want on delicate equipment like LCD pixels, what's the catch in using it on screens?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about Gattaca that was most feasible was that it was simply an artifical way of increasing the potential for physically fit offspring (and of course if we can find correspondences between certain gene sequences and intelligence I presume parents want smarter offspring), but that the chance existed anyway. My chief reservation about genetic engineering of humans has long been that if we can simply twiddle bits for whatever traits we want eventually you'll get a divergent, superhuman species--why not for instance "write in" some traits like the abillity to see as well as a cat or for skin chromatophores or any number of other things that would fundamentally render the genetically engineered nonhuman, which on a social level is unfeasible--the "norms" would just instinctively know that if a species fundamentally superior to them were allowed to flourish it would inevitably supplant them as the evolutionary victor.
But Gattaca's mode of genetic engineering simply means that those embryos chosen are fundamentally human, merely best suited to those evolutionary prssures of which we are already aware--better to have physically fit than weak offspring, 20/20 vision than myopia. Although the movie was chiefly about the difficulties for the last generations of nonengineered, the Gattacan slogan about one's children, that they're "you, just the best of you" is intriguing. It seems to me that it should be given serious consideration, but that the chief thing of whic we should be wary is its dependence on class. In Gattaca nearly everyone was engineered, but obviously the introduction of such techniques will mean as some other posters have pointed out that the rich will also be the ones with the "best" children. If people didn't have enough reason to hate plutocrats already I imagine that this situation would prove dangerously social unstable.
Rather, the way to introduce such a technique would be to have it universally available and government subsidized (yeah, yeah, that's hardly feasible. This is pure fantasy anyway, and I'm probably insulting enough ehticists as it is, for which I'm sorry, this isn't meant to be flamebait). Indeed, such a system would have to be mandatory if it were available at all, since parents would be doing a disservice to children by allowing them to be born "inferior" (according to whatever traits are determined societally desirable, and there are some. there's just no reason to want your child to be myopic) to their peers (again one of the innumerable ethical minefields here as to how to reasonably enforce such a mandate). Parents will always want the best for their children, and I think that you could expect enough people to adopt such a system to make it universally viable within about three generations.
The thing to remember about Gattaca is that overall most people were happier--they were healthier, more physically fit, less pronde to disease, they lived better lives--than they would have been otherwise, and THAT's the eventual goal of the system. The difficulty is inevitably in the transition, and it may be insurmountable, but it may not. Just so long as we can count on the instinctive desire to have healthy children there will be a motivation to make sure that they are as well-sui
Question: why is autism associated with this kind of savantism? Granted there are 'normal' geniuses, but it seems like this sort of genetic brilliance is exactly the sort of thing that could be developed--ideally without autism--using gener therapy and modern genomics. Anyone remember the Orson Scott Card novels where the planet of Path is ruled by a class of people genetically engineered for superintelligence and obsessive-compulsive disorder, although the one could be separated from the other?
It seems that the comparatively extravagant cost of free WiFi versus the number of people who can't even even afford a computer in Philadelphia puts into question why this should be a primary initiative. I agree with the goals in principle but wouldn't those tax dollars do a lot towards helping city schooling? Just a thought.
Goodbye, Hubble, from all of us. Like many an upstanding nerd I spent my youth wanting to be an astronaut (not like I still wouldn't jump at the chance) and albeit like many my dire need of glasses, among other things, disqualifies me for the position, you brought space closer to all of us even if we couldn't necessarily be there in person. May the spirit of pure science you emobdied continue and may the world not forget that it's programs like NASA and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake that makes humanity great.
Terrorist Attack? Put this in perspective. As a symbol and a demonstration of the relative laxity of certain aspects of the American security net 9/11 was devastating. But statistically 2,000 people is fewer than we lose on a monthly basis to car accidents. If there's one thing that past governments have demonstrated (not to invoke Godwin or anything) it's that if you give them the power, they will take it, and hang responsible use *cough*McCarthy*cough*. The more America lets itself quietly give up civil liberties--particularly on the domain of the internet, where the only parties with a vested interest in covering their activites for the sake of a conspiracy will find relatively easy ways around surveillance, the more this country ceases to be worth living in. Who wants absolute security at the expense of being arrested and helf without charges indefinitely? (which is now legally feasible at the government's discretion. Taking reasonable precautions in the name of security is common sense, but with the best military in the world and more security legislation than is healthy already passed, this is nothing we need, not now, not ever. I'd rather sacrifice the perceived security bonus and instead continue to live in a country worth ilving in with unrestriced access to a venue whose primary purpose is free discourse--exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect.
That was the point. With Mulder out the picture Scully, his former associate, took his place as the person who had experienced all the phenomena of the X-Files and was thus more willing to concede a supernatural cause to ostensibly supernatural phenomena. Doggett was written to fill the void Scully left as the previous "rational one." Doggett may have been a poorly done character, and goodness knows that extraneous female agent they brought in as Scully's associate was awful, but the point is that as he was written Robert Patrick did a good job of portraying him and didn't half-ass it like almost everything else was half-assed in the later seasons.
he got blown up by a hellfire missile from a helicopter in New Mexico in the unredeemably abysmal (well, except for the fact that it had Mulder) finale. He is, at long last, dead.
I think that it's going to be tough to make any sort of effective movie, especially consdiering the ridiculous "super-soldier" motif we were left with, the complete lack of Mulder during the last seasons, the killing off of such key characters as Cancer man and the Lone Gunmen (easily some of the best side characters of any show, ever), and the commercial flop the last movie had. I mean, I wish Duchovny and Carter luck, and lord knows every nerd worth his salt enjoys looking at Gillian Anderson, but I just don't think this is going to work. --Sparks
who looks at that and thinks "damn that's fugly"
But the levels in Jedi Knight were absolutely epic in scope. It remains to date a paragon of excellent level design. Using a comparatively primitive engine, LA did a lot with a little--and it showed on every level. The dialogue and Kyle's wise-cracking comments (cinematics for instance were actually done using real actors) made for a totally abosrbing Star Wars experience, moreover with a completely original plot, not just a rehashed first person shooter with a lightsaber and a brand name stuck on.
One of the earliest games where you actually got to play a Jedi and use a lightsaber, (holy cow! this is so cool, cried out all my SW fan genes) it really embodied the sort of standards LA set for itself with other games like Grim Fandango or X-wing / TIE Fighter or any of the other titles that had previously made the name "Lucasarts" synonymous with quality. Sorry about the rant, but for anyone who thinks JO or, god forbid, JA is the pinnacle of Star Wars FPSing, do yourself a favor and pick up Jedi Knight for $10, it's worth it.
P.S. -- came out during the dark age of the mid nineties. it wasn't all bad.
As it currently stands, the concept of an ID "card" isn't too radically different from a photo ID--the human face is a fundamentally unique and wholly recognizable factor, and this would just be incorporating more data to form a more accurate and complete picture (don't get me wrong, I feel that this step is unnecessary and can lead to tremendous potential for abuse. It's the first step down a slippery slope towards ever less privacy). But what's especially worrying is the potential for wireless biometric ID systems. You have on the one hand Big Brother constantly able to keep tabs on you, anywhere (whereas with a card you can just refuse to patronize places requiring it's use and, again, it's not a huge departure from a driver's license), which will inevitably lead to tighter and tighter control just because the government can, though naturally hyped-up concerns like terrorism or sedition will be used as justification. Or perhaps even worse for joe average would be the potential for targeted advertising. Remember in "minority report" where Tom Cruise walks into a store only to have personalozed advertisements fly at him based on his biometric ID and past buying records? This currenttrial might actually as it stands have some legitimate applications (I certinaly, for instance, want access to nuclear facilities to be as secure as possible), but it's our responsibility not to let it become ubiquitous and especially not wireless, in which case privacy as we know it could essentially ceased to exist.
Parent makes a good point, and this is clearly one of those ventures where clearly the advancement of technology is going to be a degree inversely proprtional to safety measures taken. But there's arguably something to be said for people's abilities to take risks if they want to (for instance, test pilots). We don't want space innovation in the private sector to become synonymous with "deathtrap," and certainly government projects have to be held to strict standards, but as far as proof-of-concept goes, I know I just wouldn't feel nearly the sense of adventure if the outcome were the wholly guaranteed result of some plastic-fantastic safety first project that would undoubgtedly costs twice as much and take twice as long as something else with a more moderate (though still, as parent points out, quite reasonable), risk factor that might lead to quicker improvement and design. This country continues to do its best to prevent us from being held accountable for spilling coffee on ourselves (*cough* McDonald's case *cough*), but it seems as though a renewed interest in the space program would also be helped by instilling it with more of a sense of risk for those involved, that is, to give it the appeal fo the old style, rugged-individualism wild west, the same sort of ideals that characterized the first US-Soviet space race and led to such rapid and effective development in both nations. Don't sacrifice safety, but don't turn something innovative and potentially vibrant into something humdrum. Just my 2 cents, and chock full of holes I know, but like all good nerds I grew up wanting to be an astronaut (goddamn lack of 20/20 vision), and it was always the image of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin launching into the unknown that appealed to me, not the idea of "routine" (as much as any spaceflight can be) shuttle flights that no one ever bothered to watch. Again, sorry for all those in the field whom I've doubtless offended, IANA NASA employee, I'm just bitter about that.
I heartily share in the depression many feel about much of slashdot's "willful ignorance," or at least curt dismissal, of envoronment studies citing global warming as a clear and present danger. What I've never gotten is why they so immediately cite bias, just because I don't get what thos of us who see global warming as a danger stand to gain through our "doomsaying." We're employed just like everyone else , we live with the same realities, what do environmentalists stand to gain by telling everyone that we have to drastically change our lifestyle for the sake of the environment? It's not like the majority of us stand to make any money off of it or benefit directly except for preventing catatrophic climate change. The point isn't that the economy is utterly worthless and we should all go out and join PETA, it's that global warming does and will continue to affect both ourselves and those who disagree with us ever more seriously, and that economic concerns shouldn't be disregarded but should be rendered secondary to the wellbeing of the biosphere we all have to share.
We're not out to raise rabble for its own sake, it's just that the issue isn't one we can write off whatever arguments you want to make about the exact ratio of natural to man-made contributions to climate cycles. Better to act now and in the increasingly unlikely event that that would be wrong write off the loss and enjoy the new technology developed in the meanwhile, than look around in 2100 and realize we can't do anyhting but turn up the AC.
--Sparks
Come on, think about it. He's got everything: A swank suit, the will to stand up to the big guy, and a /. constituency so fanatically devoted that they'd sell their own kidneys. Definitely a penguin who knows where his towel is.
It looks like the relative velocity of Cassini to Huygens actually *was* high enough to lend a singificant Doppler shift, so correspondingly the data rate was massively compressed--like the frequency of a racecar coming towards you getting higher and higher, except in this case its bitrate instead of sound. The antenna was only designed to "listen" for a fairly static bitrate --like if once the car got close enough and the sound frequency high enough you just stopped hearing it. So instead they're altering the flightpaths so that Cassini is now far enough away from Huygens that the broadcast vector is mostly perpendicular, with minimal Doppler shift -- think about standing very far away from the racetrack instead of right in front of the car. The total distance between you and the car changes by much less, so you hear more of a constant hum than a higher and higher frequency, analogous to the drone of a jet plane passing far overhead. Because the Doppler shift is minimal, the antenna can now receive data at a nearly constant bitrate it can handle. Very nicely done.
...As if the voices of a million Star Wars fans suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced...
Just wondering why Isopropyl is allegedly bad for cleaning LCDs? It seems like a volatile, inert solvent is exactly the sort of thing you would want on delicate equipment like LCD pixels, what's the catch in using it on screens?