Net Effect

I’m working on the proposal for my next book. As I do, I end up churning out little thought pieces. I figure I may as well share them now instead of later, and even let people participate in the formation of these ideas and arguments.

Jay Babcock at Arthur has maintained a place for me to publish these and reach a wider audience, so I’ll just excerpt and link to over there.

The first time I worked with a computer, way back in high school in the late ’70s, there was no such thing as software. To use the terminal, I had to write my own code and then input it into the computer. Only then would the computer be a typewriter, a calculator, a psychiatrist, or an elevator controller. A computer was an “anything” machine. Moreover, everything I wrote and saved—my “content”—was accessible and changeable by anyone else on the system—unless I specifically ordered otherwise. Media was no longer fixed, it was changeable. Not only ownership, but also the notion of finality itself had become arbitrary—even artificial.

Today, most of us think of computers—and all of our digital devices—in terms of the applications they offer: “What does it already do” instead of “what can I make it do?” Likewise, instead of teaching computer programming in school, we teach kids how to use Microsoft Windows. This difference is profound. It exemplifies the core difference between a society capable of thinking its way beyond its current limitations, and one destined to repeat the same mistakes until it drives itself to extinction.

Computers and networking technology present humanity with the greatest opportunity for renaissance since the invention of the 22-letter alphabet in about the second millennium BCE. But, just like then, we are squandering the opportunity.

more…

Posted on 14 October '09 by Douglas, under Uncategorized.

10 Comments to “Net Effect”

#1 Posted by David (14.10.09 at 11:12 )

This leads to the question: so how are we supposed to get out from under this massive top-down determination of the ways we interact with software? Most people don’t want to jam the insides of the machine and are content to stay on the level of the froth of behaviours produced by software riding on hardware.

Could it have been otherwise? Is this just one of those laments for a lost world that never could have been? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

All media (all technologies?) seem to slide along a trajectory from an initial anything-machine to a this-thing-machine with its potentialities severely constrained. Expertise comes along and hides the inner workings from the masses, who most of the time couldn’t care less whether or not they get to mess about in the innards.

Picky point: it’s not strictly true to say that the computer you were using back in the 70s had no software, right? It had to have some kind of OS for managing the reading and interpretation of the user’s input. Also, language compilers, video terminal drivers, etc. No?

#2 Posted by mason (14.10.09 at 13:47 )

I said my piece at Arthur, but, yeah, David, there was an OS! There it is! A sort of uncomplicated, but complicating eden at the core. HEY, glad to hear it’s ok to lament the passing of things of which we have slim to no factual basis for in experience!

-mason

#3 Posted by Motoko (14.10.09 at 13:52 )

take a minute and reflect on the program KOANPRO. It is available for free download (just google sseo koanpro) at least in a demo version. It is a music program, but not a sequencer. it is an ambient music generator. What’s interesting about it (if you can get it to do anything, which is very difficult) is that you just set restrictions and chose the samples, and the program composes and plays the music. so the roles of human/software have actually been switched in this program, which came out some time way back in the 90′s. I know that probably doesn’t help you much as far as writing your book(especially since i am almost the only person i’ve ever known to use the program), but i thought you’d be interested. one of those things where you only need one white crow…

#4 Posted by Motoko (14.10.09 at 14:14 )

also, http://bit.ly/1y26GN

is the weaponized technology of the expanded consciousness being handed out to the people or sneakily turned against them?

do we, as a society, pit the wise against the dumb? the experts against the layman? if so, why? are we a society of such paranoid (and perhaps personality disordered) people that every fact becomes a knife to put in someone else’s back?

why is it that in IT-advanced countries it is most often illegal to have ‘unauthorized access to information?’ do corporations and governments really have privacies, identities, to be protected?

there is a notion of a freedom of speech. what about a freedom of reading?

sorry if i’m rambling a bit, but i’m still debating it all in my head

#5 Posted by rushkoff (14.10.09 at 14:40 )

Yeah – not software “applications” as we understand them today – but there was certainly machine language and, better, a Basic OS through which I could write my code:

10 print “all your machine are belongs to us”
20 escape = “off”
30 go to 10

#6 Posted by mason (14.10.09 at 15:12 )

What *did* your voice from the machine world really print, Doug?

Considering your remark at Arthur, i am finding it difficult to return to my original programming. I am feeling the urge to remain here a pace and disobey (if only slightly). Are you beginning to sense the urge to resit interrogating the system may ultimately prove futile? I have long been arriving to the realisation that i have no exact idea of what it is for which i hope.

“Fare forward, travellers! not escaping from the past
Into different lives, or into any future;
You are not the same people who left that station
Or who will arrive at any terminus,”
——–
“For most of us, there is only the unattended
Moment, the moment in and out of time,
The distraction fit, lost in a shaft of sunlight,
The wild thyme unseen, or the winter lightning
Or the waterfall, or music heard so deeply
That it is not heard at all, but you are the music
While the music lasts. These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action.
The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation.”

- THE DRY SALVAGES
(No. 3 of ‘Four Quartets’)
T.S. Eliot

#7 Posted by Charles (14.10.09 at 19:55 )

Beautiful use of poetry mason. The last line is particularly profound for me.

..and as for you Mr Rushkoff…well I was turfed out of bed around 4.30 am while catching up on your media squat podcast of 28 September. As an advertising man I think you’ve thrown down the gauntlet to the business and I’m prepared to defend the notion of brands albeit unexpectedly if the chance ever arises. I was surprised at the intensity of your critique becuase I think the corporation is more pathological and yet you’ve been somewhat more reserved with criticism for the incorporated ones. Though of course Ogilvy & Mater are indeed incorporated in the WPP group.

Hope we get t0 have that discussion. It would be good f0r both of us I think.

#8 Posted by James (15.10.09 at 10:50 )

Have you seen this article (URL and quote below)?

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/10/13

“The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned Texas Instruments (TI) today not to pursue its baseless legal threats against calculator hobbyists who blogged about potential modifications to the company’s programmable graphing calculators…”

Not only do we not program computers for ourselves, in many cases there are severe restrictions to prevent us from doing so!

#9 Posted by samantha (15.10.09 at 13:00 )

I guess what all of this idealism comes down to, unfortunately, is: how do you make people care? I’m constantly being told things like, “That’s life!” or my personal favorite, “Welcome to the real world,” and I just refuse to accept this is the way things must be. I live in Oklahoma, which might be the problem, but my biggest obstacle has always been how to make people care about bettering their own lives and the lives of others.

It’s like what David said, how do you get out from under this massive system? Also, what happens when it’s mostly the intellectuals who even ponder these questions? I applaud you for always staying idealistic and being willing to explore territory which is very often ignored. Without people saying that things can be different, this world would be much colder, indeed.

#10 Posted by John R. Sedivy (10.02.10 at 14:57 )

Probably the most disturbing aspect is that as time passes and new generations emerge on the scene, people will just assume this is the way it’s supposed to be.

I remember an engineering project I managed where we had to migrate a system from DOS 5.0 to Windows XP. At the time I recall many of the experienced field representatives were upset about losing the pure DOS command prompt and the user control which diminished with each subsequent release of operating system updates. At the time I viewed it as resistance to change, but in hindsight there was more to it. Control was intentionally or unintentionally being shifted from the field to the factory, and ultimately to Microsoft.

Another missed point is that losing the ability to modify a product or software reduces innovation. If only one company has the keys to unlock the software innovation will be restricted to the confines of the talent of the individuals within that single organization. The ability of the user to make modifications can greatly increase innovation and unlock undreamed of possibilities.

Pure open source products seem a bit amateur to me, however completely closed systems are too constraining. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Great article and I look forward to your new book!