Jazzy D's Soul Notes

Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe" *Penguin)






This book was okay. The most terrible thing about it was how the author seemed to jump from one subject to another. He talks about how everything that was computable was attempted to be computed on early computers. George Dyson seems to want to do too much with his limited space in this book. He goes from the problem of Nuclear Weapons development to the creation of digital life.

Although this book is called Turing's Cathedral, it's mostly about John von Neumann and how he went flitting about and making advances in early computer technology. Even if he didn't make the advances himself, von Neumann always found a way to be involved. There's nothing really wrong with this, but, it is slightly misleading. Turing doesn't even come into the picture until the thirteenth chapter, causing me to wonder why it was called this at all. I mean, I guess the point of the entire book is to convey the enormity of Turing's Universal Machine, and the influences it has on the present.

Due to the meandering nature of the author's attention, this book is comparable to Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon in some ways. It also made it so I wanted to drop this book numerous times. The author starts out conventionally enough, by talking about 1953 and the first Hydrogen Bomb. He then wanders over to the creation of New Jersey...? But wait no, this matters because New Jersey is where Princeton is, and Princeton is where the IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) is located.So we get to find out that William Penn, the famous Quaker that founded Pennsylvania also had a hand in founding New Jersey.

*Sigh* In any case, this book is not really that well organized, though I suppose it does contain a number of neat old photographs.

In any case, I might read this book again but it would have to be for a pretty good reason.

Steven Johnson "How We Got Here Now: Six Innovations that Made the Modern World" (Penguin)







This was a fascinating look at innovation and discovery. Concentrating on just six areas – glass, cold, sound, clean, time, light – and using what he calls the “hummingbird effect,” the author demonstrates how discoveries build upon one another and bring about changes in seemingly unrelated areas, leading us in directions we never imagined.

For example, glass: before the 15th century, most people were farsighted and never knew it; most couldn’t read and had no need to see tiny shapes formed into words. Therefore, spectacles remained rare and expensive items. The invention of the printing press changed that when it brought the written word to the masses, creating a market for spectacles. People began experimenting with lenses; microscopes, telescopes, and cameras were invented, creating a multitude of new discoveries in the sciences as a result.

The author discounts the lone genius theory where one person magically came up with an idea and “invented” it. He demonstrates how most innovations were collaborations. An example was the light bulb: multiple individuals were working on developing the light bulb, and many “invented” it, but the person known for the light bulb was the one whose bulb outperformed the others and was most successful in bringing it to market. And that was Thomas Edison.

I could babble on a lot about this book and how much I enjoyed it. But instead, I’m going to encourage you to give this a read and have fun learning about how all the things we take for granted became part of our daily lives. And no, you do not need to know one bit about science to enjoy this – just curious about the world around us.

ICTs - Information and Communication Technologies are my thoughts and concerns of the day ,and in particular something i have been rather complicit in ,selfies.

Every day Facebook users upload 350 million photos, Instagrammers share 95 million photos and there are 3 billion Snapchat snaps. A central element of visual sharing online involves 'selfies' - which often generate more comment than anything else. But why this fascination with images that can often be repetitive and unimaginative? Do they feed a culture of unhealthy narcissism, as critics assert, or are they a more complex cultural phenomenon?  Also,are we public by default and private by huge effort?

Also, why are some people turning their back on the use of any information communication technologies?

Discuss.

I sure did sleep in this morning.No reason why except maybe i just needed the rest.AS it is i woke up at ten ,and then had my shower,and then went back but this time to read some books.

For lunch i had a meat feast pizza,with garlic bread and a green basil pesto. IT was my first pizza since last Tuesday. I have been having either fish ,a hot pot,or lambs liver for lunch.

Anyway i have a pub visit in Gravesend tomorrow so it will be a steak day for me.

The new external DVD drive arrived. So i plugged it in and played that Charles Mingus CD that i had all the trouble with,thinking that it was copyrighted, bit it played fine. Turned out to be the old drive playing up after all.

So in the end i watched all the final episodes to Dollhouse Season 1 - what a fantastic series.Now i will have to get the second and final season.

Another philosophic problem is posed in this article about technology and trust again from the wonderful Open Learn website -

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/technology-and-trust



The transcript -

Insidiously our lives have been regulated, monitored. Glass lenses watch impassively as we move about our daily lives, recording, noting all. Computers compile dossiers of where we live and how we spend our money.

Our letterboxes fill with unsolicited pamphlets, our names and addresses sold to mailing lists across the country. We can’t even browse our favourite web pages without the data being recorded and kept. How can we have trust in a society where our lives are being monitored by technology to such a huge degree?

The increased use of CCTV surveillance cameras has been, we are assured, for public safety. But what does this surveillance of our personal movement say about trust in our society? Do we need such a level of transparency to ensure public safety?

Surely, as Onora O’Neill argues, increased surveillance lowers the level of trust, and increases suspicion - the antithesis of trust. Do we have the right to go about our private business without this level of suspicion?

The implication is that we are no longer trustworthy, guilty before the act. If you have something to hide, then you must be guilty. Where does privacy sit in this transparent society? Is privacy a fundamental human right?

The alternative view is that surveillance cameras are able to furnish the authorities with images that identify criminals. Surveillance then, is useful in investigation, may act as a deterrent, but is unable to actively prevent crime.

What use privacy, when it gets in the way of solving crime? If we are to police our increasingly complex society, surely we should use all of the help we can get? Surveillance is merely a tool, and is used by responsible authorities for the public good. Privacy is irrelevant if you don’t have anything to hide.

The problem, it appears, is that the public is becoming increasingly suspicious of the authorities and their use of the information that we often give away unknowingly in the course of our daily lives.

The increasing use of computer databases to store personal information, and then the sharing and indeed the selling of this information by authorities and organisations has outraged many. We provide this information for the purpose of a transaction, and it is a breach of trust if this information is passed on.

With computer data tracking, it is possible to follow a credit or loyalty cardholder’s purchases, and from this information, target marketing to an individual’s spending habits. It is possible to know who you are, where you live, what you buy, if you’ve ever defaulted on a payment, ever had a motor vehicle incident - the list is endless.

Similar technology is used on the Internet, with the use of server-side applications, cookies and databases. Information on how you arrived at a particular web page, whether you have visited before (and how often), who you are, and what other pages you have been to can easily be obtained.

Do we really want other people to know our browsing habits? Do we want this sort of information to be available on the open market? The internet is even being used to broadcast CCTV cameras world wide, so it’s not only our browsing habits that are monitored.

The threat to privacy has been partly addressed by the UK’s 1998 Data Protection Act, which outlines what is meant by personal data, and the latest laws relating to the collecting, possession and distribution of data. It makes interesting reading, and illustrates the extent to which personal data has been used up until now.

One of the fundamental questions that arises from this law is - who is going to enforce it, and how? Do we trust our governments to follow up this type of legislation and not to use these technologies to oppress or manipulate us, or to promote certain private interests?

Technology is changing so rapidly that governments and legislation are struggling to keep up. The next change in technology will doubtless bring many benefits to consumers, but at what cost? Are we giving away our right to privacy, the right to lead our lives without the eyes of government and commerce on us?

Governments need to be particularly careful in the management of personal data and the level of surveillance on the populace. If the government cannot trust the people, then how can the people trust the government?

A breakdown of trust will lead to the breaking of the social contract, which in turn could lead to a primitive yet post-apocalyptic society. It’s a sobering thought, but at least then we will know which of the great philosophers is right about the extent of human beings' natural trust in each other.

There was an article about Sat Navs on the radio this morning and how people have lost the ability to orientate themselves, and that the technology is now in every smart phone. Well, firstly, i do not drive although i use to, and don't own a car. Secondly, i have always had a very good sense of direction, know how to use a map, and really cannot see why you need one unless you are in terrain short of markers, like the  dessert.

It is just another piece of technology  that  deadens the brain from thinking for itself.
,