Laptops (and computers in general) will always carry the paradoxical weight of being our 'best' invention to date; something created in 'our image.' And since our image is inherantly flawed (according to JC et al), computers carry that weight as well. They are of course tools and as such are appropriate for carrying out certain tasks and not others.

While we can program computers to immitate 'reality', it will only ever be imitation (i.e. synthesized clarinets or algorhithms that compose in the style of Josquin). What's interesting is that usually in performance, the tendancy is to supply the computer with 'feeling' or to garner an emotional response from it. Fortunately for us, the computer doesn't feel.

I've become increasingly interested in what computers can't do. More specifically, my interest lies in experimenting with the edge of a computer's boasted ability. For instance, video cameras that have a "700x optical zoom" or the limit of a "dual core intel processor". This is where I find nuance in computer assisted art works. Its not conceptually far from finding my own limits and exploring those, although I don't like being my own Guinea Pig.