[iDC] The 50-Year Computer

Tue Sep 30 21:08:45 UTC 2008

Hi Pat,
To say that computing hasn't changed much since the 1980's is to take a
short term view.  Now that the enablement layer issue is being seriously
addressed, mobile computing is on the rise. Look at the old machines from
the '80s and then at an iPhone. In particular the Enterprise apps for
Blackberry and iPhone such as presentation software, and accounting
packages.

Is the need to be freed from a desktop a need or a desire? I would say a
"need" and that the whole of humanities health if not evolution depends on
us moving from fixed sedentary interfaces to ambient environmental ones.

But we still have a long way to go. Currently sit-down-at-monitor still
rules. That has to change. So does the declarative nature of computing -
using a PC at the moment is like opening a door. You have to make the
decision to open the door, walk to the door, turn the knob, push the door
and then walkthrough - my vision is that we make a decision to go through a
door and it slides open.

Why is this a "need" not a "desire"? Because freeing humanity from
repetitive tasks is a function of computers. To go so far, and not the rest
of the way is to leave the job half done.

Here's the hi-res version of Playstation 9 from 2078.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdh4TqWFfX4 (let it load first, if you are on
a slow network). Very amusing but informative. And no so far away - a
company in Melbourne is developing brain to machine interfaces. Play makes
us innovative. Innovation leads to real world benefits. Yes, mind interfaces
may be originally developed for games (most technology is, originally) and
"desires" but if it frees disabled to be able to connect then it benefits
humanity as a whole.

It is a fundamental right of humans to tell the Human Narrative in creative
form. Computers from even 3 years ago would not allow the Digital Natives
(born to the 'net and YouTube) to create stories and innovate. They are not
your dusty academics who struggle with MS Word and Internet Explorer. Do not
judge their needs based on Digital Immigrants.

Television settled way to early for the lowest common denominator. Imagine
the power if the TV had continued to evolve, to move beyond soap operas and
evening 'news' tidbits into a medium for education and collaboration? We
might have raised the bar for global intelligence. Or perhaps that is what
computing has evolved into, that which television should have done. Yet TV
stayed the same precisely because it is a "receiver" of broadcast. However,
every computer has the power to "broadcast" - the democratization of
production.

I think we will settle, for a basic operational machine, like a car that
doesn't change much, in the future. But not yet. Maybe not in my lifetime.
And nor should we.

I guess my main point is this: Innovation doesn't come from a need OR a
desire. It comes from exploration and a need to push boundaries. This may
create landfill and diminishing natural resources, but it may also free
humanity from the cube farm at work, it may allow us to collaborate to
resolve some of this critical Earth issues. It may not. That's the beauty
and cruelty of innovation - the child today who creates a YouTube video may
use that knowledge to progress interactive medicine of the future. Or they
may not.

Please note, this email was written on a solar powered Macbook that I will
never ever give up. Even when I can have a light/laser based 3D mind
interface. heh.

Now, where's my drink? ??
Laurel
PS my first IDC email. I am still learning your culture, so be gentle,
please.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Simon Biggs <s.biggs at eca.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi Pat
>
> I would never suggest you are a luddite. I am arguing that technology is a
> social thing, that societies change and technology has to be (will inately
> be) responsive to that. Technologies that do not evolve become redundant.
> Your 50 year computer proposal looks attractive but how would you ensure it
> remains adaptable to unknown developments? I appreciate the argument that
> any system that is software based (as your system is) is more easily adapted
> to circumstances. However, software can only adapt in so far as the hardware
> platform it is based on enables it. Hardware independent computing is a nice
> idea – but I doubt it is realistic (ironically) at this juncture in the
> development of computing hardware.
>
> Are you drunk? ;)
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On 29/9/08 21:59, "Patrick Lichty" <voyd at voyd.com> wrote:
>
> I find it interesting that introducing such a polemic consistently creates
> this sort of response.
> Please read closer; note that I say that I have no real expectation of
> destroying Intel, but perhaps to create another class of computing, and
> shifting the crux of innovation to software craft.
>
> In addition, I also understand that technodeterminism will remain.  I
> merely polemically question the real value of what we have done, and whether
> other models could be useful.
>
> I also argue that in many ways (not all), much of computer use since the
> 1980's has NOT fundamentally changed, given certain constraints.
>
> Ned Ludd has not channeled through me, lads. I'm thinking about
> sustainability, reduction of toxic production, streamlining of ubiquitous
> computation, futurism vs. 30-year old evolitionary trends, etc. I am not
> necessarily calling for my slide rule, but perhaps for my Gibsonian
> "Sandbenders" computer.   While some are thinking that I am being
> regressive, I feel that this could be very forward thinking, if executed in
> the proper way.
>
> On another list, someone asked if I were drunk...
>
> Good, good!
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> *Simon Biggs <s.biggs at eca.ac.uk> wrote:
> *John is right. Turing's idea of the universal machine works (as an idea)
> in so many contexts because it is both simple and low-tech.
>
> It could be argued that any socially relevant technology needs to change
> constantly, just like the society that produces (and is enabled by) it. I
> would cite language as a technology which is an exemplar of this. It is
> important that it is fixed enough that we can share a degree of
> understanding in its use. However, it is equally important that it is fluid
> and motile, allowing for new formations of signification and community. If
> it sometimes get broken or abused as a result of this – well, that's not so
> bad. It is part of change.
>
> Bill Gates may have argued that operating systems should be like the
> interfaces we employ to drive cars (all the same) but one can just look at
> this idea in practice (Windows) to see how wrong he was.
>
> One could argue that it is cars and traffic systems that are unsustainable
> in their fixity. I accept that without clear shared rules, that change with
> due preparation, our transport systems would cease to function (one outcome
> of this would be the use of less carbon and thus enhanced sustainability)
> however we have only had cars and roads, in their current high
> density/performance form, for less than one hundred years. That is not a
> long enough period of time to evaluate the sustainability of such a fixed
> system. In fact, it looks like as a system it will be redundant before we
> have that opportunity.
>
> The 2nd law of thermodynamics may be relevant here...
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 29/9/08 04:38, "John Hopkins" <jhopkins at tech-no-mad.net> wrote:
>
> >The 50-year Computer
> >Manifestos for Computational Sustainability, I
> >
> >I have a proposition to make - when I am ready for my first mind/body
> >transplant in 2058, at age 95, I want to be using the same computer I am
> >today.  Upon first look, both may seem outlandish by today's standards,
> but
>
> but this IS techno-determinism in the form of a
> 'sustainable-user-centered-design' exercise...
>
> fingers and toes and perhaps an abacus on the side should do nicely, or
> perhaps consider a slip-stick.
>
> jh
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
> distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> Research Professor
> edinburgh college of art
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
> www.eca.ac.uk
>
> simon at littlepig.org.uk
> www.littlepig.org.uk
> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
> SC009201
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> Research Professor
> edinburgh college of art
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
> www.eca.ac.uk
>
> simon at littlepig.org.uk
> www.littlepig.org.uk
> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
> distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>

-- 
************************
Laurel Papworth
Social Networks Strategist
PH. 0432 684992

Social Networks and Online Communities Blog: http://silkcharm.blogspot.com
Business Website: http://www.laurelpapworth.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/silkcharm
Second Life: SilkCharm Sachertorte

Creative Commons Copyright: all rights reserved World Communities ABN 40 117
028 734
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20081001/767da82f/attachment-0001.htm 