<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [iDC] The 50-Year Computer</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>I have used computers as central to my creative practice for over 30 years. In that time computers have changed hugely and how and why I use them has also changed radically. Until the mid 1980’s it never crossed my mind that I could use a computer for anything else but programming and a creative practice based on that. Then Apple developed the commercial WIMP environment and I started doing my writing, administration and other stuff on this machine. In the late 1980’s internet access came along and I started to use it for email and shifting data around. The early 1990’s we got the web and very quickly I found myself using it for more advanced communications and, most importantly, as a production and distribution platform for creative work. This conflation of computation, networking and communications was a profound change in computing and communications. I almost stopped using the postal system and my phone use dropped off like a stone.<BR>
<BR>
More recently, with improvements in bandwidth and miniaturisation, we have seen the emergence of rich networked interactive media distributed across mobile platforms that are geo-locative aware. I am just beginning to work with the consequences and creative opportunities implicit in these developments and have the feeling they will represent a change of equal significance to earlier developments in the technology.<BR>
<BR>
Already we watch movies and listen to the radio over the net, using a computer. All our music is on our hard drive or iPhone and the stereo props up the back door. We shop online and build our communities via email lists and SL-like environments. We do all this on the move.<BR>
<BR>
I am sorry but I have to disagree with Helen’s observation and Pat’s idea of the 50 year computer. Computers have changed enormously over the past few decades and how we use them, and they use us, has changed too. I want things to go on changing. Change is good. It challenges our condition.<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
<BR>
Simon<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/10/08 00:21, "helen varley jamieson" <helen@creative-catalyst.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>i would love a 50-year computer. shopping isn't something i enjoy, & i <BR>
get really tired of having to compare all the different possibilities to <BR>
find the "best" deal, when the truth is that most of what i use my <BR>
computer for hasn't changed in the last 10 years. speed is the main <BR>
improvement. i'm sure there's a way that any extra bits that were really <BR>
needed could be plugged in on an external hard drive or something like <BR>
that. i have a kitchen whizz and an electric drill that i've been <BR>
happily using for over 20 years & showing no signs of wearing out. my <BR>
car is 44 years old & i fully expect to be still driving it when it's 50 <BR>
(unless the price of petrol prevents that).<BR>
<BR>
i heard an interview on the radio a while back about very cheap power <BR>
tools; some bright spark had worked out that the "average" person only <BR>
uses their electric drill for 6 minutes a year (in new zealand), <BR>
therefore it was only necessary to make a drill that would last for 18 <BR>
minutes of drilling in order to sell it with a 3 year guarantee. if <BR>
someone used it for more than 18 minutes & the moving parts wore out, it <BR>
could just be thrown away & replaced, because it was so cheap to make <BR>
(all the moving parts being only designed to last for such a short <BR>
time). the interviewer asked what one should do if, for example, you <BR>
were building a deck and knew that you would need to drill for more than <BR>
18 minutes. the answer was, just buy 3 drills - they only cost $15 ...<BR>
<BR>
somewhere out there, beside that huge pile of obsolete computers, is a <BR>
huge pile of worn-out 18-minute drills ...<BR>
<BR>
h : (<BR>
<BR>
Patrick Lichty wrote:<BR>
> I find it interesting that introducing such a polemic consistently <BR>
> creates this sort of response.<BR>
> Please read closer; note that I say that I have no real expectation of <BR>
> destroying Intel, but perhaps to create another class of computing, <BR>
> and shifting the crux of innovation to software craft.<BR>
><BR>
> In addition, I also understand that technodeterminism will remain. I <BR>
> merely polemically question the real value of what we have done, and <BR>
> whether other models could be useful.<BR>
><BR>
> I also argue that in many ways (not all), much of computer use since <BR>
> the 1980's has NOT fundamentally changed, given certain constraints.<BR>
><BR>
> Ned Ludd has not channeled through me, lads. I'm thinking about <BR>
> sustainability, reduction of toxic production, streamlining of <BR>
> ubiquitous computation, futurism vs. 30-year old evolitionary trends, <BR>
> etc. I am not necessarily calling for my slide rule, but perhaps for <BR>
> my Gibsonian "Sandbenders" computer. While some are thinking that I am <BR>
> being regressive, I feel that this could be very forward thinking, if <BR>
> executed in the proper way.<BR>
><BR>
> On another list, someone asked if I were drunk...<BR>
><BR>
> Good, good!<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> *<BR>
><BR>
> Simon Biggs <s.biggs@eca.ac.uk> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> *<BR>
><BR>
> John is right. Turing’s idea of the universal machine works (as an<BR>
> idea) in so many contexts because it is both simple and low-tech.<BR>
><BR>
> It could be argued that any socially relevant technology needs to<BR>
> change constantly, just like the society that produces (and is<BR>
> enabled by) it. I would cite language as a technology which is an<BR>
> exemplar of this. It is important that it is fixed enough that we<BR>
> can share a degree of understanding in its use. However, it is<BR>
> equally important that it is fluid and motile, allowing for new<BR>
> formations of signification and community. If it sometimes get<BR>
> broken or abused as a result of this – well, that’s not so bad. It<BR>
> is part of change.<BR>
><BR>
> Bill Gates may have argued that operating systems should be like<BR>
> the interfaces we employ to drive cars (all the same) but one can<BR>
> just look at this idea in practice (Windows) to see how wrong he was.<BR>
><BR>
> One could argue that it is cars and traffic systems that are<BR>
> unsustainable in their fixity. I accept that without clear shared<BR>
> rules, that change with due preparation, our transport systems<BR>
> would cease to function (one outcome of this would be the use of<BR>
> less carbon and thus enhanced sustainability) however we have only<BR>
> had cars and roads, in their current high density/performance<BR>
> form, for less than one hundred years. That is not a long enough<BR>
> period of time to evaluate the sustainability of such a fixed<BR>
> system. In fact, it looks like as a system it will be redundant<BR>
> before we have that opportunity.<BR>
><BR>
> The 2nd law of thermodynamics may be relevant here...<BR>
><BR>
> Regards<BR>
><BR>
> Simon<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On 29/9/08 04:38, "John Hopkins" <jhopkins@tech-no-mad.net> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> >The 50-year Computer<BR>
> >Manifestos for Computational Sustainability, I<BR>
> ><BR>
> >I have a proposition to make - when I am ready for my first<BR>
> mind/body<BR>
> >transplant in 2058, at age 95, I want to be using the same<BR>
> computer I am<BR>
> >today. Upon first look, both may seem outlandish by today's<BR>
> standards, but<BR>
><BR>
> but this IS techno-determinism in the form of a<BR>
> 'sustainable-user-centered-design' exercise...<BR>
><BR>
> fingers and toes and perhaps an abacus on the side should do<BR>
> nicely, or perhaps consider a slip-stick.<BR>
><BR>
> jh<BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed<BR>
> Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
> iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR>
><BR>
> List Archive:<BR>
> <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><BR>
><BR>
> RSS feed:<BR>
> <a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><BR>
><BR>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Simon Biggs<BR>
> Research Professor<BR>
> edinburgh college of art<BR>
> s.biggs@eca.ac.uk<BR>
> www.eca.ac.uk<BR>
><BR>
> simon@littlepig.org.uk<BR>
> www.littlepig.org.uk<BR>
> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk<BR>
><BR>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201<BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
> iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR>
><BR>
> List Archive:<BR>
> <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><BR>
><BR>
> RSS feed:<BR>
> <a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><BR>
><BR>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><BR>
><BR>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Simon Biggs<BR>
Research Professor<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">edinburgh college of art<BR>
</FONT>s.biggs@<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">eca</FONT>.ac.uk<BR>
www.<FONT COLOR="#FE7700">eca</FONT>.ac.uk<BR>
<BR>
simon@littlepig.org.uk<BR>
www.littlepig.org.uk<BR>
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
<!--qsdbegin-->
<br>
<pre>Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
</pre><br>
<!--qsdend-->
<br></BODY>
</HTML>