links for 2008-11-28

links for 2008-11-27

Productive reductive computing

Google's first production server

Towards the end of a recent meeting with my supervisors I was asked a question that went something along the lines of: “do you buy the argument that if something is computational, that it is then necessarily reductive?” An excellent question I think. I suggested at the time, and still believe, there are two answers to this question that go together. First, by virtue of what computing ‘is’, as a machine-enabled set of processes that rely by and large on languages based in a formal logic, we must answer ‘yes’. Second, ‘computing’ as an activity and ‘computers’ as devices do not exist in a vacuum they are a part of our lives. I am writing a blog post using my laptop, connected to a network of other computers, run and maintained by people, allowing me to ‘publish’ my thoughts on a web site held on yet another computer, and hopefully some other people are reading this! Therefore, computing is definitely a part of the ‘politics of things‘, as suggested by Latour, with and by which we and others socialise.

My two answers are not mutually exclusive, “either/or”, they go together such that, I argue, we must increasingly see ‘computing’ as a connective capacity. Computing connects people with other people, people with ideas, information with things, etc etc. In this way, I have some sympathy for those, like Adam Greenfield, that suggest that “ubiquitous computing”, or something like it, was somewhat inevitable. However, I think hindsight definitely smoothes out the errors and stumblings along the way. If we think about ubiquitous computing as “the application of computational tools to human activity regardless of the shape and form of those tools”, following Scott Carter (whom I interviewed this summer), I think we can see computing as an ‘affordance’, the capacity to enable possible actions, which is innately connective. Here we might start looking to Gregory Bateson or Deleuze and Guattari to theorise such a connective capacity.

Why do I blog this? It is useful to keep probing concepts central to, and perhaps assumed, in one’s arguments, and I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that the idea of ‘computing’ is not neccesarily fixed.

Image: Google’s first server, held in the Computer History Museum, CA, taken by me.

Intel’s “Optimism”

Exhibit about Bob Noyce at the Intel museum, San Jose

The central quote, by Robert Noyce, from this exhibit at the Intel museum is: “Optimism is the central ingredient for innovation. How else can the individual welcome change over security, adventure over staying in safe places”.

The ‘tomorrow’ of 1991

Tacita Dean - Disappearance at Sea

Image taken from Tacita Dean – Disappearance at Sea

In September 1991 Scientific American had a special issue focussing on ‘Communications, Computers and Networks’. An impressive array of articles were collected in this issue, including Mark Weiser’sThe Computer for the 21st Century‘, which is often referred to as the foundational article for ‘Ubiquitous Computing‘. An article later in the issue, simply entitled ‘Networks’ by Vint Cerf, expertly charted the issues that were to arise in the exponential growth of the internet. Also in the special issue was an article by Alan Kay about ‘Computers, Networks and Education’, expounding the ideals he set forth in his proposal of the ‘dynabook‘ to think about how technologies can be allies not hindrances in education. In the introduction to this special issue of Scientific American, Michael L. Dertouzos suggests that:

“the authors in this issue share a hopeful vision of a future built on information infrastructure that will enrich our lives by reliving us of mundane tasks, by improving the ways we live, learn and work and by unlocking new personal and social freedoms”.

Continue reading “The ‘tomorrow’ of 1991”

Alan Kay’s cartoon journey to the laptop

Joseph Lambert has created, for Business Week, a marvelous cartoon, following Steve Hamm’s new book, charting Alan Kay’s significant role in the development of the personal computer and, in particular, the development path of the laptop. To quote John Markoff’s excellent book, What the Dormouse Said:

Kay’s ideas frequently brought him into conflict with Xerox’s management. He had little patience for the company’s top strategic planner, Don Pendery. To Kay, Pendery saw the world in terms of “trends” and thought defensively, asking, “What was the future going to be like and how can Xerox defend against it?” This drove Kay to distraction, until one day he got so angry he blurted out [the now infamous], “Look, the best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

Kay-if you can get a large part of the utopian dream out there, you should be pleased.
Marvelous!

I guess there are two ways of looking at the form of invention Kay suggests. The first is cynical – futures can be controlled and explicitly directed for profit. The second, and I think Kay’s intended meaning, is that researchers have a responsibility to experiment with, and propose, what is not yet possible. As Ryan Aipperspach once insightfully said to me: “as a researcher or designer there is an interesting responsibility to design and propose things that aren’t completely possible.” This is perhaps exemplified by Lars Erik Holmquist’s ideas about prototyping, or Mike Kuniavsky and Liz Goodman’sSketching in Hardware” conference.

links for 2008-11-19