Sunday, November 30, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
what is a tangent?
I was just writing for my systems project and thought about how the future infrastructure system's infinite customizeability will be so dense and so large that people will download "skins" to govern how their lights, solar-panels, water-heater, hydrogen-powered car, nano-bot powered replicator, and other home devices interact with one another and provide comforts to the user.
Once some geek has gone in and tweaked all the millions of settings to get the lights in your house to automatically (and accurately - that's the hard part that requires geekiness) know when you're reading and need bright lights, you'll be able to go to the 'net and download his application.
Once a group of people identify some trendy lifestyle - let's say eco-efficiency just 'cause it's obvious - and define a set of behaviors that the system will follow to help you conserve as much as possible without sacrificing too much comfort, that configuration skin will sweep the nation and you'll know who'se "in" because you'll see their lights turn out just before they leave their house in the morning, instead of the default (just after they leave).
Here's your tangent: If someone defines a set of behaviors that takes that "eco-friendly" one more step to where the user can barely survive, or at least is in constant discomfort, then only people who are too bored (or who have been cowed into accepting the necessity of being soooo eco-efficient) will run those settings. This will effectively become a religion, or at least another medium for religion-y patterns to show themselves in human culture.
Once some geek has gone in and tweaked all the millions of settings to get the lights in your house to automatically (and accurately - that's the hard part that requires geekiness) know when you're reading and need bright lights, you'll be able to go to the 'net and download his application.
Once a group of people identify some trendy lifestyle - let's say eco-efficiency just 'cause it's obvious - and define a set of behaviors that the system will follow to help you conserve as much as possible without sacrificing too much comfort, that configuration skin will sweep the nation and you'll know who'se "in" because you'll see their lights turn out just before they leave their house in the morning, instead of the default (just after they leave).
Here's your tangent: If someone defines a set of behaviors that takes that "eco-friendly" one more step to where the user can barely survive, or at least is in constant discomfort, then only people who are too bored (or who have been cowed into accepting the necessity of being soooo eco-efficient) will run those settings. This will effectively become a religion, or at least another medium for religion-y patterns to show themselves in human culture.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
intersections
I was browsing for sources for the systems project and came across a quote from Neil Gershenfeld of MIT:
...'but "the bubbles kept interfering," Gershenfeld says. "It eventually occurred to us that we should use them." '
(http://www.technologyreview.com/article/18673/)
This "occurred to us" eventually turned into an article published in Science. The same sort of "knowing when to let go of your previous goal and follow the one that has sprung up before you" was described to me by an advisor at UTD, Fred Turner, when we were discussing what I might study if I went there for grad studies.
Perhaps it's a primary function of advisors (of academia in general?) to help relax an individual's pursuit of one particular goal so that he/she may take advantage of those random, tangential discoveries that pop up?
...'but "the bubbles kept interfering," Gershenfeld says. "It eventually occurred to us that we should use them." '
(http://www.technologyreview.com/article/18673/)
This "occurred to us" eventually turned into an article published in Science. The same sort of "knowing when to let go of your previous goal and follow the one that has sprung up before you" was described to me by an advisor at UTD, Fred Turner, when we were discussing what I might study if I went there for grad studies.
Perhaps it's a primary function of advisors (of academia in general?) to help relax an individual's pursuit of one particular goal so that he/she may take advantage of those random, tangential discoveries that pop up?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
conceptual
Last night I discovered I have no idea what a concept is.
Over the past few years, I've been pushing myself to get comfortable with really difficult, confusing ideas like "close enough to be wrong," which refers to the fact that something has to be somewhat comparable before it really registers as being different. Like an apple and an orange - different, but still fruits. An apple and the ides of march? There's not even a similarity, much less a difference.
But there's a few levels between this and what I thought was implementation. Now I'm struggling to make this sort of profound philosophy into something big but real. Where, exactly, is that border between niggling details and lost-in-the-clouds? I can definitely do both of those, but recognizing which is which and willfully straddling the fence is much more difficult and disciplined.
Over the past few years, I've been pushing myself to get comfortable with really difficult, confusing ideas like "close enough to be wrong," which refers to the fact that something has to be somewhat comparable before it really registers as being different. Like an apple and an orange - different, but still fruits. An apple and the ides of march? There's not even a similarity, much less a difference.
But there's a few levels between this and what I thought was implementation. Now I'm struggling to make this sort of profound philosophy into something big but real. Where, exactly, is that border between niggling details and lost-in-the-clouds? I can definitely do both of those, but recognizing which is which and willfully straddling the fence is much more difficult and disciplined.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
overwhelmed
Yesterday I was more stressed out than I've ever been because of systems. Today we gave the presentation (the final is in 3 weeks) and I'm taking 20 minutes to relax before I get back to work.
I'm pondering again the nature of information - got a quickie course in library science yesterday and was disheartened and confused (yet again) by the fact that there is far too much information for me to begin to get a handle on it. But i'm still convinced I can find a way around that problem.
Here's another concrete step: somebody at google is trying to get an order-of-magnitude appraisal of how much info is being created:
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/
I'm pondering again the nature of information - got a quickie course in library science yesterday and was disheartened and confused (yet again) by the fact that there is far too much information for me to begin to get a handle on it. But i'm still convinced I can find a way around that problem.
Here's another concrete step: somebody at google is trying to get an order-of-magnitude appraisal of how much info is being created:
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/
Friday, November 7, 2008
emergence
This semester's most prominent theme has been about emergence: the formation of order from the interaction of many individual actors.
It was sparked by the book of the same name I read over the summer.
It has been carried on in my classes by the recognition that any successful business phenomenon is fundamentally propelled by lots of individual choices, and never by the imposition of anything on a large group. (though the rules and limitation of choices by what big companies choose to make of course has some effect)
It is repeated in all my sociology study: how does one person's weird clothes become a fashion trend? Why do individual scientists often pursue the same research and make the same discoveries on opposite sides of the world at the same time?
It's especially relevant in my systems class: how can a city (which came about because of the millions of people who chose to move in) act as a unit or a whole and get those people coordinated - without losing the fundamental reality that the city itself is only an abstraction and it's only the individuals who matter?
And it only became clear to me that it's truly an important issue when I was thinking about why all those people started chanting - spontaneously - "yes we can" at Obama's speech earlier this week. Is it possible that a similar impulse - if focused more poignantly in a somewhat smaller group - could cause the spontaneous formation of coordinated dancing like we see in the movies?
At any rate, it's all too little understood and needs to be exploited more effectively.
It was sparked by the book of the same name I read over the summer.
It has been carried on in my classes by the recognition that any successful business phenomenon is fundamentally propelled by lots of individual choices, and never by the imposition of anything on a large group. (though the rules and limitation of choices by what big companies choose to make of course has some effect)
It is repeated in all my sociology study: how does one person's weird clothes become a fashion trend? Why do individual scientists often pursue the same research and make the same discoveries on opposite sides of the world at the same time?
It's especially relevant in my systems class: how can a city (which came about because of the millions of people who chose to move in) act as a unit or a whole and get those people coordinated - without losing the fundamental reality that the city itself is only an abstraction and it's only the individuals who matter?
And it only became clear to me that it's truly an important issue when I was thinking about why all those people started chanting - spontaneously - "yes we can" at Obama's speech earlier this week. Is it possible that a similar impulse - if focused more poignantly in a somewhat smaller group - could cause the spontaneous formation of coordinated dancing like we see in the movies?
At any rate, it's all too little understood and needs to be exploited more effectively.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
new president
Are we excited by Mr Obama's win? I'm glad he asked, "what will the world be like if our children live for another 100 years?" Because my colleagues and I now have good prospects for jobs as strategic planners.
But more importantly I'm wondering - why did I never watch Bush's speeches so closely, from the beginning to the end, hanging on every word? Why am I so pumped up and excited by Obama's (mostly) empty words and vague promises?
While I have to admit there was plenty he said to admire and that had a starkly different focus than the current president (i.e. it's gonna be hard, we're gonna fail before we win, there are other people in the world we need to think of), his mindset and point of view still don't really square with mine (I would have had him say, "this is a step in the right direction, but it's important to realize that this trip of humanity's into the future will never be over; there are no resting points, and no end goal; tomorrow's another working day and we'd better get some rest.") But the key point is that it makes me feel empowered and energized to hear him say all that, and I know that my work will a little freer and easier in the coming months (until we find out he's as corrupt as a politician) and I'll be a little more daring and outspoken since I feel like our society and our power-structure supports something resembling my point of view.
so the real question becomes, how can I separate this feeling of empowerment from some silly leader? How can I find it in rocks and trees so it won't be endangered by politics? How can I reassure myself that my dreams, ambitions, and goals aren't insane without explicitly having someone tell me so?
But more importantly I'm wondering - why did I never watch Bush's speeches so closely, from the beginning to the end, hanging on every word? Why am I so pumped up and excited by Obama's (mostly) empty words and vague promises?
While I have to admit there was plenty he said to admire and that had a starkly different focus than the current president (i.e. it's gonna be hard, we're gonna fail before we win, there are other people in the world we need to think of), his mindset and point of view still don't really square with mine (I would have had him say, "this is a step in the right direction, but it's important to realize that this trip of humanity's into the future will never be over; there are no resting points, and no end goal; tomorrow's another working day and we'd better get some rest.") But the key point is that it makes me feel empowered and energized to hear him say all that, and I know that my work will a little freer and easier in the coming months (until we find out he's as corrupt as a politician) and I'll be a little more daring and outspoken since I feel like our society and our power-structure supports something resembling my point of view.
so the real question becomes, how can I separate this feeling of empowerment from some silly leader? How can I find it in rocks and trees so it won't be endangered by politics? How can I reassure myself that my dreams, ambitions, and goals aren't insane without explicitly having someone tell me so?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
