This article seemed to jump around for me a bit; it started talking about the fascinations of science and technology, then went to talk about the reception or lack thereof of great research papers and struggles in producing ideas, then began speaking of great ideas for photography and filmography.

However I think the general gist, which involved the jumping around was to discuss how scientists should make more accessible the “bewildering store of knowledge” available, using examples from the past and future to demonstrate this.

Here are some of my notes I picked up:

• Science has contributed to significant developments for humankind; increased control over material environments, increased security, improved good, clothes and shelter, offered freedom from disease and an increased life span and given us swift communication between individuals
• However, there are endless amounts of research out there, with thousands of conclusions, research papers, findings and scholarly works. This article suggests that the time spent creating these amazing things is sometimes not proportionate to its reception in the world or the time spent reading/studying them.
• There is significant work out there, that despite its potential to revolutionise a certain field, becomes lost in the “mass of the inconsequential” which is quite sad
• Past examples à the calculating machine that had the economies of the situation against it; labour costs and unreliability outweighed its usefulness and innovation. Babbage’s arithmetical machine suffered a similar fate; the construction and maintenance costs were too heavy
• Machines these days can be constructed with great economy of effort, that is, the time and labour spent constructing it is beaten by its success and significance.

The second part of the article about the Walnut-cam slightly confused me, however I believe it was a future example of how innovation in a field should be grasped and worked towards, not turned away because of complicated logistics.