[iDC] The 50-Year Computer

Simon Biggs s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
Wed Oct 1 08:46:08 UTC 2008


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 1980¹s 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 1980¹s internet access came along and I started to use
it for email and shifting data around. The early 1990¹s 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.

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.

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.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with Helen¹s observation and Pat¹s 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.

Regards

Simon


On 1/10/08 00:21, "helen varley jamieson" <helen at creative-catalyst.com>
wrote:

> i would love a 50-year computer. shopping isn't something i enjoy, & i
> get really tired of having to compare all the different possibilities to
> find the "best" deal, when the truth is that most of what i use my
> computer for hasn't changed in the last 10 years. speed is the main
> improvement. i'm sure there's a way that any extra bits that were really
> needed could be plugged in on an external hard drive or something like
> that. i have a kitchen whizz and an electric drill that i've been
> happily using for over 20 years & showing no signs of wearing out. my
> car is 44 years old & i fully expect to be still driving it when it's 50
> (unless the price of petrol prevents that).
> 
> i heard an interview on the radio a while back about very cheap power
> tools; some bright spark had worked out that the "average" person only
> uses their electric drill for 6 minutes a year (in new zealand),
> therefore it was only necessary to make a drill that would last for 18
> minutes of drilling in order to sell it with a 3 year guarantee. if
> someone used it for more than 18 minutes & the moving parts wore out, it
> could just be thrown away & replaced, because it was so cheap to make
> (all the moving parts being only designed to last for such a short
> time). the interviewer asked what one should do if, for example, you
> were building a deck and knew that you would need to drill for more than
> 18 minutes. the answer was, just buy 3 drills - they only cost $15 ...
> 
> somewhere out there, beside that huge pile of obsolete computers, is a
> huge pile of worn-out 18-minute drills ...
> 
> h : (
> 
> Patrick Lichty 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. Turing¹s 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, that¹s 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
>> >         
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20081001/3f5450de/attachment.htm 


More information about the iDC mailing list