The irony is that when it comes to the prediction racket, Sun Microsystems' CEO will never be confused with the Amazing Kreskin. For years, McNealy wrongly argued that the era of client-based computing was about to give way to a new approach where--borrowing upon the company's tag line--the network was the computer.
Still, you can only be wrong for so long. McNealy's prediction is coming true, though not because companies are suddenly mad about network computing architectures or software components produced at Sun.
The real game changer is broadband. More than any development since the late 1990s, the proliferation of inexpensive high-speed Internet connections represents a profound structural shift in the computer business. Among other things, it promises to usher in an era in which network access becomes the equivalent of a global utility.
Truth be told, the broadband rollout in this country has proceeded at a snail's pace. While nations like South Korea and Japan surged ahead, the U.S. dithered. The good news is that America's high-tech industry has hurdled most of the bureaucratic obstacles put in its way by a distracted federal government.
When this build-out reaches a tipping point, what happens then? That remains an open debate, but one point already is beyond contestation: Most of the important software development work being done these days is almost exclusively focused around the network and network services.
I'm not exaggerating. When it comes to the desktop, the only real innovation remains in the realm of so-called helper apps that support media or other communication applications. (For example, you've got things like iTunes, software media players, instant messaging and various desktop applets--Sidebar, Google Desktop. Big deal.)
McNealy's peripatetic No. 2, Jonathan Schwartz, believes he knows where all this is leading. Last week, he told an audience at the American India Foundation that the PC is on a collision course with irrelevance. If Schwartz is right--and I think he is--then the platform of choice inevitably will move to the network. Talk about a pregnant scenario!
In this gauzy future, some industry veterans talk about a vast Internet cloud in the sky acting as a virtual computer with limitless storage. For many of the mega-companies that have long dominated the computer industry, that's not necessarily great news.
For instance, a desktop computer doesn't figure to dominate a future where people can use a multiplicity of mobile devices to tap into that cloud. In other words, good-bye PCs, hello Dynabooks (or something quite similar). Is it any wonder that IBM sold off its PC business to China's Lenovo?
The people responsible for shepherding Windows also have to wonder how their cash cow fits into a world where operating systems are losing relevance. Maybe the same will also apply to middleware suppliers.
"It's the inevitable path of all software engineering," said Grady Booch, the chief scientist of IBM's Rational Software business who predicts the emergence of organizations banding around architectural standards that live above the middleware level. "It's operating systems today, middleware tomorrow," he said.
McNealy and Larry Ellison--he of the Network Computer--first put the issue on the agenda way back when. The computer industry's been debating the timetable ever since. Turns out they weren't wrong, they were just too early. Broadband availability was the missing piece of the puzzle.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
Scott McNealy, middleware, Jonathan Schwartz, broadband, supplier
Ownership of objects; the state of our ever evolving law books reflect our success at dealing with. But while flawed, it reflects that we can deal effectively with instances of objects.
Ownership of ideas, copyrights, copyleft; the current Google imbroglio reflects the fact that we have started to try to come to terms with the entire class of a particular object, even if its entirely abstract. We're still fumbling between instances and classes (instance factories) and can be expected to do so for quite some time, but at least we've started.
Ownership of meta-objects; in most respects we haven't even begun to reflect on these. We have not yet started to respond to some facts: Ownership of objects means responsability for the maintenance of those objects.
In order to make what I'm talking about somewhat more real, lets take a 'for instance.'
The Unites States Postal Service (USPS) is the only entity responsable for ZIP codes and whatever uses IT makes of the ZIP codes.
But it IS also responsable for what uses WE, the citizens of the territories covered, might make of its codes. British Post and Canada Post and all of the Post Offices are similarly empowered and encumbered.
Up 'til now, all the use has been done without verification and without being able to make use of the geodetic data that a ZIP code represents unless one went to the Post Office or somehow obtained a copy of the ZIP codes book.
Up 'till now, we didn't have the bandwidth, computing power or the memory available to even think that the entity responsable for a class of objects representing some common use, say the USPS ZIP code, and the geodetic data that each instance, say each ZIP code, represents, could provide a real-world and a meta-world connection between user and usage.
But now, with multi-gigaHertz 64-bit computer power and 64-bit RAM address space, multi-terabyte hard disk and Flash RAM drives, 128 bit IPv6 over the fibre internet, we can begin to consider the possibility that the onership of the objects can and needs to remain with the entities owning them.
The internet needs to evolve some capacity to maintain the connections (where an extremely simple data structure consisting of pairs of URL/URI/URR needs to reside,) in a distributed fashion for all the entities where ownership falls 'between the cracks'.
Guess where Oracle, or IBM, fits in?
Or COULD fit in if the relational model for the SQL was extended to include Relationships and a common implementation was derived for the instantions of Connections. (Relationships would be intra and inter data base, which involves publishing all or parts of schemas and other details, not least of which involve security.)
Potentially, Oracle and Sun, IBM and any other player with the power to deploy could play in the space opened up but the internet.
Somebody has to supply the Relationship infrastructure and hopefully do so more inteligently than was done for the current fiber infrastructure. That is the challenge and the opportunity, an enormous opportunity.
Ownership of objects; the state of our ever evolving law books reflect our success at dealing with. But while flawed, it reflects that we can deal effectively with instances of objects.
Ownership of ideas, copyrights, copyleft; the current Google imbroglio reflects the fact that we have started to try to come to terms with the entire class of a particular object, even if its entirely abstract. We're still fumbling between instances and classes (instance factories) and can be expected to do so for quite some time, but at least we've started.
Ownership of meta-objects; in most respects we haven't even begun to reflect on these. We have not yet started to respond to some facts: Ownership of objects means responsability for the maintenance of those objects.
In order to make what I'm talking about somewhat more real, lets take a 'for instance.'
The Unites States Postal Service (USPS) is the only entity responsable for ZIP codes and whatever uses IT makes of the ZIP codes.
But it IS also responsable for what uses WE, the citizens of the territories covered, might make of its codes. British Post and Canada Post and all of the Post Offices are similarly empowered and encumbered.
Up 'til now, all the use has been done without verification and without being able to make use of the geodetic data that a ZIP code represents unless one went to the Post Office or somehow obtained a copy of the ZIP codes book.
Up 'till now, we didn't have the bandwidth, computing power or the memory available to even think that the entity responsable for a class of objects representing some common use, say the USPS ZIP code, and the geodetic data that each instance, say each ZIP code, represents, could provide a real-world and a meta-world connection between user and usage.
But now, with multi-gigaHertz 64-bit computer power and 64-bit RAM address space, multi-terabyte hard disk and Flash RAM drives, 128 bit IPv6 over the fibre internet, we can begin to consider the possibility that the onership of the objects can and needs to remain with the entities owning them.
The internet needs to evolve some capacity to maintain the connections (where an extremely simple data structure consisting of pairs of URL/URI/URR needs to reside,) in a distributed fashion for all the entities where ownership falls 'between the cracks'.
Guess where Oracle, or IBM, fits in?
Or COULD fit in if the relational model for the SQL was extended to include Relationships and a common implementation was derived for the instantions of Connections. (Relationships would be intra and inter data base, which involves publishing all or parts of schemas and other details, not least of which involve security.)
Potentially, Oracle and Sun, IBM and any other player with the power to deploy could play in the space opened up but the internet.
Somebody has to supply the Relationship infrastructure and hopefully do so more inteligently than was done for the current fiber infrastructure. That is the challenge and the opportunity, an enormous opportunity.
Applies here too. My client-side operating system has enough trouble sustaining itself under it's own weight; imagine the troubles of a 'middleware' handling hundreds of thousands of users. A good deal of the reason the Internet can exist the way it does is because the majority of the workload is actually handled by one computer at a time.
There are advances that still await manifestation before any of this talk is relivant. Parallel processing, parallel computing, processor architecure, quantum computing, all have decades to go before the technology availible can support the system. But even then, all of these advancments will have changed Computing in ways we can't begin to imagine.
There's an invisible line out somewhere in the ether that seperates my computer from being a standalone or a workstation. No one can really draw that line extactly but we can all agree what sits next to my desk is still well behind that line. I can try to throw the bulky thing as far as I can but that'll likely break it, best to take it one step at a time, and I might find a better place to go along the way.
Applies here too. My client-side operating system has enough trouble sustaining itself under it's own weight; imagine the troubles of a 'middleware' handling hundreds of thousands of users. A good deal of the reason the Internet can exist the way it does is because the majority of the workload is actually handled by one computer at a time.
There are advances that still await manifestation before any of this talk is relivant. Parallel processing, parallel computing, processor architecure, quantum computing, all have decades to go before the technology availible can support the system. But even then, all of these advancments will have changed Computing in ways we can't begin to imagine.
There's an invisible line out somewhere in the ether that seperates my computer from being a standalone or a workstation. No one can really draw that line extactly but we can all agree what sits next to my desk is still well behind that line. I can try to throw the bulky thing as far as I can but that'll likely break it, best to take it one step at a time, and I might find a better place to go along the way.
Indeed, the direction of most new development is skewing toward Web-based apps. However, these apps will simply be appended to existing, ongoing, no-plan-to-replace, working-just-fine legacy systems.
It is exciting to make sweeping statements of technological advance and strong assurances of the obsolescence of prior technologies - it sells papers/magazines/ads and brings readers to Web sites. However, such over-the-top statements simply do not wash with real-world business practices, where the axiom, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" often rule supreme.
have clients who have millions of dollars wrapped up in their
Cobol programs and will not entertain the thought of rewriting
their systems. They refer to their Cobol code as an "investment".
Rewriting it would take millions more and there is no need to do
that. But what does that have to do with replacing PCs?
Let's take the scenario that this company who has millions
"invested" into Cobol programs takes that enterprise accounting
software and makes it available to others outside their company.
How about a calculator that uses the net to download financial
information to seed its calculations. That calculator replaces a
function of the PC. Who cares if the data came from a mainframe
running Cobol99. I don't have a mainframe in my house, but I do
have plenty of gadgets that can process information from the
net without it going through my PC. That's the point being
made.
Indeed, the direction of most new development is skewing toward Web-based apps. However, these apps will simply be appended to existing, ongoing, no-plan-to-replace, working-just-fine legacy systems.
It is exciting to make sweeping statements of technological advance and strong assurances of the obsolescence of prior technologies - it sells papers/magazines/ads and brings readers to Web sites. However, such over-the-top statements simply do not wash with real-world business practices, where the axiom, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" often rule supreme.
have clients who have millions of dollars wrapped up in their
Cobol programs and will not entertain the thought of rewriting
their systems. They refer to their Cobol code as an "investment".
Rewriting it would take millions more and there is no need to do
that. But what does that have to do with replacing PCs?
Let's take the scenario that this company who has millions
"invested" into Cobol programs takes that enterprise accounting
software and makes it available to others outside their company.
How about a calculator that uses the net to download financial
information to seed its calculations. That calculator replaces a
function of the PC. Who cares if the data came from a mainframe
running Cobol99. I don't have a mainframe in my house, but I do
have plenty of gadgets that can process information from the
net without it going through my PC. That's the point being
made.
the computer users of the world will be running in the same way
they do now - just much faster, with much bigger apps and files.
Bandwidth will be important in moving data around the world, but
"the vast Internet cloud in the sky" may provide near-limitless
back-up storage, but the rest of the current 'vision' of that cloud is
just pure smoke.
become obsolete. It's that the PC will not be the hub for
accessing and processing information and will take a backseat to
other possibilities.
Consider your TV. The reason that companies have not been
able to successfully merge the PC with the TV and to get the vast
majority to use it is because people do not - make that will not -
use their PCs to manage their TV use. TiVo is a good example.
PCs can do what TiVo can, but TiVo is a much better use of the
technology. I can see the day when a TiVo-like interfaces will be
available through the TV, but all the software resides on the
providers hosts. All the TV needs to know to do is to manage the
interface. A full blown OS is not needed to manage UI elements.
Hence, the PC is not the center of the universe in this scenario.
More uses of technology will become available because no one
wants to huddle around the beige box in the corner to get things
done. I don't want to wait until I boot up to get my email. Once I
become accustom to getting my mail in other ways the PC
becomes a drag. This is already happening. Also, continuously
adding more features to the OS over the years has made them
unstable and costly to support (more memory and faster CPUs).
A $76 cell phone replaces a $2,300 machine for getting email -
plus it works!
the computer users of the world will be running in the same way
they do now - just much faster, with much bigger apps and files.
Bandwidth will be important in moving data around the world, but
"the vast Internet cloud in the sky" may provide near-limitless
back-up storage, but the rest of the current 'vision' of that cloud is
just pure smoke.
become obsolete. It's that the PC will not be the hub for
accessing and processing information and will take a backseat to
other possibilities.
Consider your TV. The reason that companies have not been
able to successfully merge the PC with the TV and to get the vast
majority to use it is because people do not - make that will not -
use their PCs to manage their TV use. TiVo is a good example.
PCs can do what TiVo can, but TiVo is a much better use of the
technology. I can see the day when a TiVo-like interfaces will be
available through the TV, but all the software resides on the
providers hosts. All the TV needs to know to do is to manage the
interface. A full blown OS is not needed to manage UI elements.
Hence, the PC is not the center of the universe in this scenario.
More uses of technology will become available because no one
wants to huddle around the beige box in the corner to get things
done. I don't want to wait until I boot up to get my email. Once I
become accustom to getting my mail in other ways the PC
becomes a drag. This is already happening. Also, continuously
adding more features to the OS over the years has made them
unstable and costly to support (more memory and faster CPUs).
A $76 cell phone replaces a $2,300 machine for getting email -
plus it works!
Sun is working on a thin-client desktop grid, delivered via its Tarantella technology. It's excellent software, and could well deliver "Java Desktops" at $1 a day very soon.
But then again, maybe Google will get there first? They certainly do make usable software - and their AJAX-enabled web services are literally awesome. My gut tells me that first to market doesn't win this game (a la Netscape versus IE).
Interesting times ahead - and maybe this explains why the Microsoft share price never goes above $26 despite a huge P/E ratio?
Sun is working on a thin-client desktop grid, delivered via its Tarantella technology. It's excellent software, and could well deliver "Java Desktops" at $1 a day very soon.
But then again, maybe Google will get there first? They certainly do make usable software - and their AJAX-enabled web services are literally awesome. My gut tells me that first to market doesn't win this game (a la Netscape versus IE).
Interesting times ahead - and maybe this explains why the Microsoft share price never goes above $26 despite a huge P/E ratio?
back and look at your current usage. We have
high powered systems for work and play. Thin is
great for the office. Reliable connections
limited use. Good Stuff! But at home? On The
Road? Soccer moms and dad's are going portable.
Cell Phone, and/or PDA/Laptop. It sucks when you
are cut off of all connections (90 percent of
the US), but at least I can still game. Thin?
add a OS for when connections are nonexistant
and what do you have? A regular system! So
enough with the thin is in stuff. Fat is where
it is at. Love it or hate it!
industry has done to the mainframe business. Already I feel like the cell phone I
use every day is more powerful (and definitely more useful) than the desktop PCs I
have owned just a few years ago. I am often a cynic when it comes to hearing what
executives broadcast to the world since most often, it's self-serving and
although it's pretty obvious that this recent statement from Sun's exec is self-serving,
I do agree with his vision that cell phones will be the main client machines for
people to access the web (and information services in general).
Source: http://www.charlesjo.com/newsletterissue?newsletterIssueEntityId=560
back and look at your current usage. We have
high powered systems for work and play. Thin is
great for the office. Reliable connections
limited use. Good Stuff! But at home? On The
Road? Soccer moms and dad's are going portable.
Cell Phone, and/or PDA/Laptop. It sucks when you
are cut off of all connections (90 percent of
the US), but at least I can still game. Thin?
add a OS for when connections are nonexistant
and what do you have? A regular system! So
enough with the thin is in stuff. Fat is where
it is at. Love it or hate it!
industry has done to the mainframe business. Already I feel like the cell phone I
use every day is more powerful (and definitely more useful) than the desktop PCs I
have owned just a few years ago. I am often a cynic when it comes to hearing what
executives broadcast to the world since most often, it's self-serving and
although it's pretty obvious that this recent statement from Sun's exec is self-serving,
I do agree with his vision that cell phones will be the main client machines for
people to access the web (and information services in general).
Source: http://www.charlesjo.com/newsletterissue?newsletterIssueEntityId=560
the multi-screen setup
why is the multi-screen TV setup the intrinsic shape of the medium?
why will the number of screens you can read and operate from
simultaneously become the preeminent measure of human intelligence?
imaging screen technologies now dictate the shape of societies, their
cultures and their potentials. those citizens most able to uptake local
and remote information via imaging screen technology will be better
informed, less prone to error in analysis and trend projection, and, hence,
in a position to exercise leadership and policy determinations. there is
no such thing as "information overload". there is, however, such a thing
as cognitive underutilization. we can train ourselves to increase the
throughput density of information and invent new interpretive frames of
reference for realtime evaluation of information.
amplifications OF a single screen and ON a single screen such as big
screen projection and screen insets (computer pull downs and windows)
are an evolutionary dead end for imaging technology no matter what the
resolution, screen size or screen write speed. a multi-screen array
consisting of a tailored number of monitor modules will become the
universal application of 2-D screen imaging. every office and home will
have banks of monitors tuned to various media feeds, displaying
computer functions and acting in a variety of gauge roles. Marshal
McLuhan correctly concluded that any new technology tends to
incorporate the new function within the shape of the older replaced
technology. hence, television kept the single screen of cinema as did
cinema keep the proscenium stage attributes of theater and so on.
breakouts from this chronic backwards referencing of new technology can
occur wherever the pressure of necessity requires accurate and predictive
data. television was little more than a curiosity until WWII, when CRT
imaging was accellerated by the indispensability of radar, wherein the
extension of view out across space equated to a higher resolution in
prediction models. the abstraction of information onto a realtime over-
the-horizon view on a picture screen (rather than a telescope eye piece,
for example) meant a quantum leap in information processing potential
from the mechanical domain to the electrical domain. banks of radar
screens allowed the orchestration of complex vectoring of attention and
its subsequent materiel in the high velocity = high necessity situations of
aircraft control centers and cockpits.
the principle of military intelligence is non-delusional and survival
dependent. this is applicable to domains other than military. human
intelligence is very much dependent upon visual uptake and its cognitive
apparatus of the brain. our brains devote about half of their total function
to the reception and evaluation of visual data. direct picture cognition,
(as opposed to print-symbol cognition) integrated into our our concept of
space geometry, can be accellerated to multiply our IQ (heretofore
primarily evaluated based upon print literacy). there is a simple exercise
to give one a taste of this ability. if you place two TV sets side by side,
tuned to two different channels, volume up on both, and concentrate on
following the information flux simultaneously, within ten minutes of
moderate concentration you will have eclipsed 500 years of obsolete
sequential print patterning. multi-screen image literacy will position
your perceptions within a flux of simultaneous info, ie., a more accurate
model of the real 3-d world of simultaneous events.
why multi-screen array with 6, 8 or 10 screens rather than a single screen
with insets or message overlays? obviously, a multi-monitor setup means
independent, autonomous modular circuitry, so that a fail-safe redundancy
is inherent to the set-up. but as a cognitive tool, modules of the same
screen size breaks down impediments built into the hierarchy of subject
object predicate sequential print uptake. in an array of screens, you define
a frame of reference consisting of equal domains where important info can
pop up and be recognized anywhere on the array. with the peripheral visual
field sharing a conscious role, a secondary hierarchical dominance is
defeated, that of the pencil thin cone of the central visual field which is
lessened, allowing for an awareness of field interplay, rather than an
awareness of only point objects acting upon an inert background. point
scanning is the dominant uptake mode of print literacy. the TV's electron
scan already does this for us at a far greater velocity than our eyes.
instead of mimicking the thin visual uptake tunnel of print reading, we can
begin to apperceive in blanket areas and allow the eye to "read" the
situation as the situation dictates instead of being trapped in a line by
line, left to right, top to bottom and other rigid physical and cognitive
schema. the primary result is an increase in interpretive flexibility,
tending to downplay expectations based on sequential linearity and thus
allowing for the discovery of new and unexpected patterns via inductive
projective synthesis rather than a deductive extrapolation on an
preexistant theme, ideology or mood on the part of the analyst. a second
result is a cognitive breakout from the specialists tunnel vision. no longer
are phenomena, particularly social phenomena, allowed to exist divorced
from relationship, as existential isolates. the wider the field of view, the
more apparent are actual operant causalities across previously
exclusionary categories. the third result is the repatterning of thought
from words into pictures. if a picture is worth a thousand words, thinking
in pictures is a three orders of magnitude increase in efficiency.
in a multi-screen array, the eyes, jumping from screen to screen, look for
important data at a rapid rate. this makes the domain boundaries (screen
borders) become more and more permeable. this is diametrically opposed
to the single screen (theater/cinema) limitation of having the viewer
captive to a single bounded area. any singular oriented media of
communication which attempts to overlay itself upon plural fields is an
unfaithful model of the field fluxes of the real 3-d world and does not
prepare us to act effectively in the 3-d world.
breakthroughs in human invention are characterized by the translation of
concepts across boundaries, usually by the synthesis of several existing
processes into a new process. to perform such an inventive synthesis
requires a breakdown of conceptual boundaries and a reintegration of the
contents. the nice thing about using boundary crashing activity within a
defined array of monitors is that the array itself is less able to be
conceived of as an isolated single domain, ie., a single tool for a single
problem, and the processes occurring within it are encouraged to breakout
and be applied synthetically to other areas. electronic imaging technology
is essentially the first ever tool intrinsically capable of performing
multi-functions. the activity of intensive image integration into
meaningful patterns can be one of the most powerful tools ever invented
for the propagation of human invention itself.
that activity also consists of more than shifting attention from screen to
screen. it also consists of zooming in and out on a single screen to pick up
detail. the zoom in\out action of attention focus is as important as
domain jumping in the breakdown of conceptual boundaries, possibly even
more so since it essentially turns any visual field boundary into an elastic
one. conceptual synthesis and conceptual elasticity work hand in hand to
create human genius.
when both operate in concert, a powerful amplification of information
throughput and analysis can come into play for the first time in human
affairs. a great deal of human misery is caused by the inability to
reintegrate new information with old information in a way that reflects
adequate problem solving within a new situation. the simple tyranny of
word categories wherein a single entity word is used to describe
impossibly complex ideas as in the case of the word- "life" attempting to
convey anything close to the concept; does more to keep humanity from
discovering its potential than any other single impediment. a single
picture (read "diagram" into this notion) can provide far more info on the
subject, a motion picture even more, and an array of video screens with
realtime programming can begin to approach the kind of modeling we
need in order to act in a problem solving manner. this schematic also
holds for inner visual imagination processes as well, although our ability
to inner visualize with full memory and in color, stereo with synthetic
freedom is almost totally inhibited by our endocrinal dampening system
which has been genetically developed for far more hostile circumstances
and historically overexercised by physical want and emotional trauma.
insofar as vision is the one human perception capable of the most
information flux density, having both breadth and simultenaity, then
inner imaging exercises a corresponding proportional ideational mix on
the inside. as previously stated, over half the brain's neurons are used to
process and understand visual input. its visual input data channel has a
bandwidth estimated to be about 2 gigabits (billion bits) per second.
total memory recall is probably more than half visual and obviously the
key factor of photographic memory in human genius. any effort we make
to undampen human visual perception, both inner and outer, will pay off
by increasing human intelligence.
to recap- the concept of unitariness (as opposed to a flux of necessity-
based emphases, ie., an emphasis field) is the single most intelligence
inhibiting factor in human affairs. unitariness has the irritating
capability to take "a" visual field and turn it into "the" visual field, a
dangerous game when the game board of perception consists of an infinity
of internal and external fields both within the individual and within the
interplay of individuals known as society. singularity is thus,
paradoxically, chaotic because it inhibits meaning formation. again, this
can be best illustrated in the verbal domain where unitary word symbol
packages come to stand for pictures. this is obviously quicksand when you
add the difficulty of synonyms and inflection. it is easy to see how a
unitary word symbol can mean a range of things not intended. imagine if
humans spoke a single word, waited for a single word reply, spoke a single
word again, etc. the essence of the problem is apparent, though probably
not to Deconstructionist ideologues. with word-string sentences the
problem of accuracy remains, although the setup is workable in a one on
one situation, even a one on several situation but begins to break down in
a one on many situation and absolutely does not operate in reverse, not to
mention a many to many situation. verbal communication is sequential
and slow, 700mph. visual communication is simultaneous and fast,
186,000 mps. the creation of a new visual language capable of
communicating within an electrical social matrix is the one key invention
that will unlock the future in a more unlimited sense than ever imagined.
the application of boundary crunching concepts to organize data
dynamically into temporary clumps of greater specific utility is an
impulse towards efficiency. of course a dimension with no time would be
the most efficient of all, everything simultaneous. our dimension
contains/is contained by time, but since all dimensions connect, overlay
and superimpose to varying degrees, our closest perceptual approximation
of trans-dimensionality is the visual field in which a picture consisting
of many elements is perceived at once.
continuity, any continuity, whether conceptual or visual, is easily seen as
being a sort of timelessness. so if we overlay visual meaning upon data
fields, and make the process dynamic by relating them into greater
efficiencies, we are participating more and more in timeless dimension,
and if that aint cosmic, kids, i don't know what is.
so find two TV's and clump them together into a field and engage the
clump with your significance amplifier lobes. it doesn't matter what the
programs are since the meaning of the exercise is not "what's on" the
screen, but what's on in the head, ie., what cognitive tools are being
fashioned irrespective of program content. the overriding consideration
is the formal arrangement of 2+ screens and the cognitive rearranging it
instigates to cause simultaneous mini-continuities to occur within the
maxi-continuity of consciousness. my bet is that anyone seriously
experimenting with this setup will eventually find themselves filling the
screens with whatever program material best serves the primary
function of gauge/diagram. this is because the multi-screen setup not
only encourages domain jumping but also makes it very easy to exercise
comparative judgement in a field free of constants. the yardsticks are
relative, no inches, pounds or btu's. constants are replaced with
threshold awarenesses which would indicate subsequent efficient
actions- a range of actions that could be tailored with a high degree of
differentiation. this is to say that problem solving actions would be
more likely to solve the problem (and solve it personally, with personal
responsibility rather than bureaucratic evasion) than be an exercise in
role playing or intellectual whacking off. the only universal constants
are those which are the intersection of all dimensions. life itself is
such an intersection. time itself is such an intersection. its hard to use
the real constants/statics for a yardstick because everything is in a
process of becoming. (try having an inch be one ten flymillionth of the
universe) so we humanize our gauges and use inches that are the average
length of a thumb to the first knuckle because we can build apparatuses
with that constant which allow us to approach a more refined threshold
of instrumentation with, ratcheting up, a more refined (universal)
constant etc. etc. the inherent result of this process in human terms is
that we find ourselves living a very long time and knowing a very great
deal. there is a workable refinement in which the pi relation between
the radius and circumference of a circle is a harmonic.
walter alter
1985
the multi-screen setup
why is the multi-screen TV setup the intrinsic shape of the medium?
why will the number of screens you can read and operate from
simultaneously become the preeminent measure of human intelligence?
imaging screen technologies now dictate the shape of societies, their
cultures and their potentials. those citizens most able to uptake local
and remote information via imaging screen technology will be better
informed, less prone to error in analysis and trend projection, and, hence,
in a position to exercise leadership and policy determinations. there is
no such thing as "information overload". there is, however, such a thing
as cognitive underutilization. we can train ourselves to increase the
throughput density of information and invent new interpretive frames of
reference for realtime evaluation of information.
amplifications OF a single screen and ON a single screen such as big
screen projection and screen insets (computer pull downs and windows)
are an evolutionary dead end for imaging technology no matter what the
resolution, screen size or screen write speed. a multi-screen array
consisting of a tailored number of monitor modules will become the
universal application of 2-D screen imaging. every office and home will
have banks of monitors tuned to various media feeds, displaying
computer functions and acting in a variety of gauge roles. Marshal
McLuhan correctly concluded that any new technology tends to
incorporate the new function within the shape of the older replaced
technology. hence, television kept the single screen of cinema as did
cinema keep the proscenium stage attributes of theater and so on.
breakouts from this chronic backwards referencing of new technology can
occur wherever the pressure of necessity requires accurate and predictive
data. television was little more than a curiosity until WWII, when CRT
imaging was accellerated by the indispensability of radar, wherein the
extension of view out across space equated to a higher resolution in
prediction models. the abstraction of information onto a realtime over-
the-horizon view on a picture screen (rather than a telescope eye piece,
for example) meant a quantum leap in information processing potential
from the mechanical domain to the electrical domain. banks of radar
screens allowed the orchestration of complex vectoring of attention and
its subsequent materiel in the high velocity = high necessity situations of
aircraft control centers and cockpits.
the principle of military intelligence is non-delusional and survival
dependent. this is applicable to domains other than military. human
intelligence is very much dependent upon visual uptake and its cognitive
apparatus of the brain. our brains devote about half of their total function
to the reception and evaluation of visual data. direct picture cognition,
(as opposed to print-symbol cognition) integrated into our our concept of
space geometry, can be accellerated to multiply our IQ (heretofore
primarily evaluated based upon print literacy). there is a simple exercise
to give one a taste of this ability. if you place two TV sets side by side,
tuned to two different channels, volume up on both, and concentrate on
following the information flux simultaneously, within ten minutes of
moderate concentration you will have eclipsed 500 years of obsolete
sequential print patterning. multi-screen image literacy will position
your perceptions within a flux of simultaneous info, ie., a more accurate
model of the real 3-d world of simultaneous events.
why multi-screen array with 6, 8 or 10 screens rather than a single screen
with insets or message overlays? obviously, a multi-monitor setup means
independent, autonomous modular circuitry, so that a fail-safe redundancy
is inherent to the set-up. but as a cognitive tool, modules of the same
screen size breaks down impediments built into the hierarchy of subject
object predicate sequential print uptake. in an array of screens, you define
a frame of reference consisting of equal domains where important info can
pop up and be recognized anywhere on the array. with the peripheral visual
field sharing a conscious role, a secondary hierarchical dominance is
defeated, that of the pencil thin cone of the central visual field which is
lessened, allowing for an awareness of field interplay, rather than an
awareness of only point objects acting upon an inert background. point
scanning is the dominant uptake mode of print literacy. the TV's electron
scan already does this for us at a far greater velocity than our eyes.
instead of mimicking the thin visual uptake tunnel of print reading, we can
begin to apperceive in blanket areas and allow the eye to "read" the
situation as the situation dictates instead of being trapped in a line by
line, left to right, top to bottom and other rigid physical and cognitive
schema. the primary result is an increase in interpretive flexibility,
tending to downplay expectations based on sequential linearity and thus
allowing for the discovery of new and unexpected patterns via inductive
projective synthesis rather than a deductive extrapolation on an
preexistant theme, ideology or mood on the part of the analyst. a second
result is a cognitive breakout from the specialists tunnel vision. no longer
are phenomena, particularly social phenomena, allowed to exist divorced
from relationship, as existential isolates. the wider the field of view, the
more apparent are actual operant causalities across previously
exclusionary categories. the third result is the repatterning of thought
from words into pictures. if a picture is worth a thousand words, thinking
in pictures is a three orders of magnitude increase in efficiency.
in a multi-screen array, the eyes, jumping from screen to screen, look for
important data at a rapid rate. this makes the domain boundaries (screen
borders) become more and more permeable. this is diametrically opposed
to the single screen (theater/cinema) limitation of having the viewer
captive to a single bounded area. any singular oriented media of
communication which attempts to overlay itself upon plural fields is an
unfaithful model of the field fluxes of the real 3-d world and does not
prepare us to act effectively in the 3-d world.
breakthroughs in human invention are characterized by the translation of
concepts across boundaries, usually by the synthesis of several existing
processes into a new process. to perform such an inventive synthesis
requires a breakdown of conceptual boundaries and a reintegration of the
contents. the nice thing about using boundary crashing activity within a
defined array of monitors is that the array itself is less able to be
conceived of as an isolated single domain, ie., a single tool for a single
problem, and the processes occurring within it are encouraged to breakout
and be applied synthetically to other areas. electronic imaging technology
is essentially the first ever tool intrinsically capable of performing
multi-functions. the activity of intensive image integration into
meaningful patterns can be one of the most powerful tools ever invented
for the propagation of human invention itself.
that activity also consists of more than shifting attention from screen to
screen. it also consists of zooming in and out on a single screen to pick up
detail. the zoom in\out action of attention focus is as important as
domain jumping in the breakdown of conceptual boundaries, possibly even
more so since it essentially turns any visual field boundary into an elastic
one. conceptual synthesis and conceptual elasticity work hand in hand to
create human genius.
when both operate in concert, a powerful amplification of information
throughput and analysis can come into play for the first time in human
affairs. a great deal of human misery is caused by the inability to
reintegrate new information with old information in a way that reflects
adequate problem solving within a new situation. the simple tyranny of
word categories wherein a single entity word is used to describe
impossibly complex ideas as in the case of the word- "life" attempting to
convey anything close to the concept; does more to keep humanity from
discovering its potential than any other single impediment. a single
picture (read "diagram" into this notion) can provide far more info on the
subject, a motion picture even more, and an array of video screens with
realtime programming can begin to approach the kind of modeling we
need in order to act in a problem solving manner. this schematic also
holds for inner visual imagination processes as well, although our ability
to inner visualize with full memory and in color, stereo with synthetic
freedom is almost totally inhibited by our endocrinal dampening system
which has been genetically developed for far more hostile circumstances
and historically overexercised by physical want and emotional trauma.
insofar as vision is the one human perception capable of the most
information flux density, having both breadth and simultenaity, then
inner imaging exercises a corresponding proportional ideational mix on
the inside. as previously stated, over half the brain's neurons are used to
process and understand visual input. its visual input data channel has a
bandwidth estimated to be about 2 gigabits (billion bits) per second.
total memory recall is probably more than half visual and obviously the
key factor of photographic memory in human genius. any effort we make
to undampen human visual perception, both inner and outer, will pay off
by increasing human intelligence.
to recap- the concept of unitariness (as opposed to a flux of necessity-
based emphases, ie., an emphasis field) is the single most intelligence
inhibiting factor in human affairs. unitariness has the irritating
capability to take "a" visual field and turn it into "the" visual field, a
dangerous game when the game board of perception consists of an infinity
of internal and external fields both within the individual and within the
interplay of individuals known as society. singularity is thus,
paradoxically, chaotic because it inhibits meaning formation. again, this
can be best illustrated in the verbal domain where unitary word symbol
packages come to stand for pictures. this is obviously quicksand when you
add the difficulty of synonyms and inflection. it is easy to see how a
unitary word symbol can mean a range of things not intended. imagine if
humans spoke a single word, waited for a single word reply, spoke a single
word again, etc. the essence of the problem is apparent, though probably
not to Deconstructionist ideologues. with word-string sentences the
problem of accuracy remains, although the setup is workable in a one on
one situation, even a one on several situation but begins to break down in
a one on many situation and absolutely does not operate in reverse, not to
mention a many to many situation. verbal communication is sequential
and slow, 700mph. visual communication is simultaneous and fast,
186,000 mps. the creation of a new visual language capable of
communicating within an electrical social matrix is the one key invention
that will unlock the future in a more unlimited sense than ever imagined.
the application of boundary crunching concepts to organize data
dynamically into temporary clumps of greater specific utility is an
impulse towards efficiency. of course a dimension with no time would be
the most efficient of all, everything simultaneous. our dimension
contains/is contained by time, but since all dimensions connect, overlay
and superimpose to varying degrees, our closest perceptual approximation
of trans-dimensionality is the visual field in which a picture consisting
of many elements is perceived at once.
continuity, any continuity, whether conceptual or visual, is easily seen as
being a sort of timelessness. so if we overlay visual meaning upon data
fields, and make the process dynamic by relating them into greater
efficiencies, we are participating more and more in timeless dimension,
and if that aint cosmic, kids, i don't know what is.
so find two TV's and clump them together into a field and engage the
clump with your significance amplifier lobes. it doesn't matter what the
programs are since the meaning of the exercise is not "what's on" the
screen, but what's on in the head, ie., what cognitive tools are being
fashioned irrespective of program content. the overriding consideration
is the formal arrangement of 2+ screens and the cognitive rearranging it
instigates to cause simultaneous mini-continuities to occur within the
maxi-continuity of consciousness. my bet is that anyone seriously
experimenting with this setup will eventually find themselves filling the
screens with whatever program material best serves the primary
function of gauge/diagram. this is because the multi-screen setup not
only encourages domain jumping but also makes it very easy to exercise
comparative judgement in a field free of constants. the yardsticks are
relative, no inches, pounds or btu's. constants are replaced with
threshold awarenesses which would indicate subsequent efficient
actions- a range of actions that could be tailored with a high degree of
differentiation. this is to say that problem solving actions would be
more likely to solve the problem (and solve it personally, with personal
responsibility rather than bureaucratic evasion) than be an exercise in
role playing or intellectual whacking off. the only universal constants
are those which are the intersection of all dimensions. life itself is
such an intersection. time itself is such an intersection. its hard to use
the real constants/statics for a yardstick because everything is in a
process of becoming. (try having an inch be one ten flymillionth of the
universe) so we humanize our gauges and use inches that are the average
length of a thumb to the first knuckle because we can build apparatuses
with that constant which allow us to approach a more refined threshold
of instrumentation with, ratcheting up, a more refined (universal)
constant etc. etc. the inherent result of this process in human terms is
that we find ourselves living a very long time and knowing a very great
deal. there is a workable refinement in which the pi relation between
the radius and circumference of a circle is a harmonic.
walter alter
1985
I know we all want to root for the underdog (Google, Linux, Apple, et al. vs M$; AMD vs Intel) but let us be realistic and accept that M$ has legacy entrenchment and as a corporation can (and more than likely will) turn the 'network is the computer' concept to their advantage when the time is right.
How many times has Apple been dead and comeback? I'm sure the 800-pound gorilla M$ is can do the same.
essentially can run within a Google browser, then Windows s
wasted. Google will provide a small boot program to start up the
computer and connect it to the Google site. Once there, you
have access, in one way or another, to all the applications
Google has available. You mauy have the choice to tun an App
using the Google server, or maybe you can download the app to
run on your computer, still within the Google browser
environment, or what actually is the Google OS. Data can reside
on the local computer or on Google servers. Nowhere does the
user need Windows.
And that's what's scaring the hell out of Steve and Bill. It's what
Netscape could have done, given the money and motivation.
Google has the money and motivation to do it, if it wants to.
UNix and linux now provide the basic which Google could use.
Java is additional coding that could be used. Many needed apps
are in open source now. Others can be easily provided by
current software developers for rent or sale over the Google
web.
And that shaking in Redmond is from the shaking of Bill's knees.
The handwriting is on the wall, in letters 10 feet high. If Google
decides to go with the concept, MS is too musclebound,
hidebound, and fogbound to save their butts. MS won't go away,
but do you think that Bill can learn to live on just one or two
billion????
I know we all want to root for the underdog (Google, Linux, Apple, et al. vs M$; AMD vs Intel) but let us be realistic and accept that M$ has legacy entrenchment and as a corporation can (and more than likely will) turn the 'network is the computer' concept to their advantage when the time is right.
How many times has Apple been dead and comeback? I'm sure the 800-pound gorilla M$ is can do the same.
essentially can run within a Google browser, then Windows s
wasted. Google will provide a small boot program to start up the
computer and connect it to the Google site. Once there, you
have access, in one way or another, to all the applications
Google has available. You mauy have the choice to tun an App
using the Google server, or maybe you can download the app to
run on your computer, still within the Google browser
environment, or what actually is the Google OS. Data can reside
on the local computer or on Google servers. Nowhere does the
user need Windows.
And that's what's scaring the hell out of Steve and Bill. It's what
Netscape could have done, given the money and motivation.
Google has the money and motivation to do it, if it wants to.
UNix and linux now provide the basic which Google could use.
Java is additional coding that could be used. Many needed apps
are in open source now. Others can be easily provided by
current software developers for rent or sale over the Google
web.
And that shaking in Redmond is from the shaking of Bill's knees.
The handwriting is on the wall, in letters 10 feet high. If Google
decides to go with the concept, MS is too musclebound,
hidebound, and fogbound to save their butts. MS won't go away,
but do you think that Bill can learn to live on just one or two
billion????
so, what's the relationship between the "network" and my most important use of 1's and 0's? i use it to share them. that's it! beyond that sharing, i don't manipulate them on it in any way.
and i don't see a future where i'm going to entrust my 0's and 1's to network manipulation. because i want to protect my data from intrusion. i want to be sure i have it when i want it. i want immediate response time to each manipulation i do. and because i'm not going to trust a bunch of soothsayers whose vested interest in making the network the computer is how they can charge more money than the current ownership paradigm allows.
so, Cooper, want to make a believable statement about the network becoming the computer? talk about each user's data. not the software. not operating systems. not applications. sell me on it by convincing me that the network will better manipulate my data, it will better protect my data, and it will be cheaper and faster and more reliable.
mark d.
that, more than any single other thing
so, what's the relationship between the "network" and my most important use of 1's and 0's? i use it to share them. that's it! beyond that sharing, i don't manipulate them on it in any way.
and i don't see a future where i'm going to entrust my 0's and 1's to network manipulation. because i want to protect my data from intrusion. i want to be sure i have it when i want it. i want immediate response time to each manipulation i do. and because i'm not going to trust a bunch of soothsayers whose vested interest in making the network the computer is how they can charge more money than the current ownership paradigm allows.
so, Cooper, want to make a believable statement about the network becoming the computer? talk about each user's data. not the software. not operating systems. not applications. sell me on it by convincing me that the network will better manipulate my data, it will better protect my data, and it will be cheaper and faster and more reliable.
mark d.
that, more than any single other thing
- Broadband and high speed wireless...
- by Mendz October 2, 2005 6:56 PM PDT
- ... if widely made available are partners towards a truly e-mobile market. Meanwhile, the PCs are the first viable test devices for the web platform. Then the infrastructure should be ready to take on thin-clients...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (36 Comments)