What makes communications so exciting (long response)
The Wolfe of the Den
computers and technology. At the moment (alas) we are not communicating
with the machines or the technology. :-)
Also, this is a *LONG* posting. >300 lines. You've been warned. :-)
hau...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:
>
>I need to figure out how to think about communications in a more
>abstract way or in a broader way. The link between the actual
>hardware/software combination and the ensuing results needs to be
>more concentrated on. I would like to spend time doing some of
>this thinking and studying.
Well, David Gerrold's "When Harley was 1" (either edition) has
some interesting comments on learning to communicate with some entity
from ground zero. He actually gives some introductory quotes from
Minsky and others that talk about the eschatology of communicating.
Among other things that need to be considered is the effect that
language *per se* has on how people communicate.
>I am interested (for example) in *what* has been the attraction
>of the growth of the readership and reach of Usenet News. (In
>addition to the Internet, and other various computer networks.)
<comments at the end about this>
>I find it really hard to describe what I am asking right now -
>but there is a spark that has made Usenet the explosive
>grassroots effort that it has been. People have *WANTED* to
>communicate somehow using it and this is the only way it has
>grown and developed. I am interested in trying to figure out what
>the charm or spark is that has developed the various different
>computer communications mediums - email, news, irc, etc.
>
>So far, there is one person that has some very interesting ideas
>about the role of computers in communication. This is Ithiel de
>Sola Pool. He seems to have some thoughts about what I am
>thinking of, and the role computers play with that. However he
>doesn't particularly followup on it. Below are some interesting
>quotes from his book "Technologies Without Boundaries". They seem
>to provide a link between the technical and what I am thinking
>about. I would appreciate any leads on similar works. If anyone
>has any ideas, suggestions, comments, possible resources, or
>general thoughts about my questions or train of thought, please
>either followup to this message or email to me.
Could you provide an ISBN number for this book, or a more
complete citation? I'd like to read it.
I have a whole set of theories and opinions on the subject as
well. :-)
>The quotes:
>
>Pool 32 - "There was a time when electronic communication and
>computation were thought of as quite separate and distinct
>activities. Today they are intertwined to the point where no
>meainingful borderline between then can be drawn. Both a computer
>and a digital telecommunication system can be described as
>devices that switch bits of information around under the control
>of a stored program. Each has a memory in which signals are
>stored. Each accepts input signals from terminals and also sends
>output signals to other terminals."
I want to disagree with his hypothesis here. There is still a
useful distinction between communication and "computation". It can be
easily shown that the digital communications systems are equivalent to
computer devices, but the simplistic definition of computing and
programs simply hides the distinction between the two, without
contributing to any understanding.
Quite simply, the distinction is in the purpose behind the
employment of the technology.
That computation is involved in the process of communicating
electronically is a truism, and just glosses over the intent of the
persons employing the technology.
>33 - "...But by the 1970s many computer systems had become
>widespread networks of dispersed processors and memories...
> A particularly significant kind of data trasmission
>system is one called a packet network(italics). The name comes
>from the fact..."
This again is rather simplistic. It is still relatively "rare"
for a "computer system" to be as fully distributed as he mentions
(unless you are talking about *systems* rather than single *computers*).
There are distributed application systems that use multiple
computers, and there are distributed control systems that use multiple
computers. But these are fairly easy to distinguish (yet) from the
individual computers that make up the components of these systems.
Some "single" computers are made up of networks of processors
and memories, but they are hardly "widespread" in terms of distance.
There are experimental applications that use spare capacity on
widespread networks to contribute to calculations. But again, the
distinctions are fairly obvious to the computer folks.
Packet switching networks are also distinct items. They are a
class of technology that uses a distributed control program to provide a
robust and redundant communications structure. They are "systems" in a
broadly defined sense, but the multiple values that are being applied to
that word ("systems") is getting in the way of understanding the
distinctions that exist.
>56 - "We have described this fourth of the great technological
>trends of our times not so much as an increase in computer usage
>(which of course it also is) but as an increase in the
>interactive capability of the communications system. Logical
>reaction becomes part of its capability. The machines react with
>intelligence, and so give their users some of the interaction
>that was previously available only in conversation.
>
> What has made it possible for a physical network of
>equipment to interact with its human user is the marriage of
>telecommunication with computer logic. This coupling is acheived
>in part by attaching what could also be stand-alone computers to
>the network and in part by incorporating digital logic into the
>telecommunications system itself."
This is again a bit of awe-struck "gee wiz"ing. Expert systems,
and interactive application systems do not (yet) really give
"conversational" interfaces to the systems. The speed and capabilities
available are growing fast, but "artifical intelligence" has not yet
mastered the real art of "conversation" except on limited topic areas
and special situations.
Again, part of the problem lies in definitions of such terms as
"conversation" and "intelligence" and "logical reaction."
>57 - " A second factor in the marriage of telecommunications
>with computation is the use of 'distribution logic.' In the 1960s
>it was not clear the way of the future lay in this
>direction....[Idea of big computers] What followed
"Distributed Logic" is the phrase of art. And you can still
deal with distributed systems as distinct from the communications
channels that they utilize.
So what if the communications channels themselves are
distributed systems. Their function is to provide a reliable medium for
communications. And generally, they go to great pains to isolate the
communications system itself from the data/information that is passed
through that system.
(The comm system will take notice of derived information *about*
the data transiting the comm system, but, in general, the comm system
will NOT change the data passing through it (except in certain specified
ways!) Note that there are several stories already about what can
happen when this isolation of function breaks down - Heinlein's "The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress" was an early example of this warning.)
>58 - "The predicition that the growth of minis would reduce
>communication was incorrect because it looked on computers as
>calculating machines. It focused too exclusivly on the internal
>economics of computation, on how much a particular set of
>calculations cost, adding together both computing bills and
>communications bills to do it. *It did not take account of what
>people would be using their computers for and the total costs
>involved in those activities.* *Specificly, it did not consider
>that a large part of what people use their computers for is
>communication.*
>
> For example, when the ARPANET (A R P A N) was developed,
>the expectation was that people would use it to take advanatge of
>especially good software that might be running on a computer
>elsewhere; people were expected to use it to do computations that
>they could not do at home. (7) There is little use of that kind
>because once users learn their own programs and machines, they
>rarely find it worthwhile to take the time to become familiar
>with another set that has its own special idiosycracies. But the
>ARPANET has been used a great deal. *It has been used for
>communication.* *It has created a community of scholars who work
>together and exchange experiences and information.*"
To imply that this was an "unforseen" effect of ARPANet (and its
successor - The Internet) is not exactly correct. Email and
co-operation via the provided channels was *exactly* what was imagined.
That the remote use of mainframe computers did not become a large use of
the net capacity is a result of the resulting use of smaller and more
powerful CPUs. By the time ARPAnet was being developed in the late
1970's, it was already clear to some folks that the days of the
"Mainframe" were numbered.
>59 - "INERACTIVE AND INDIVIDUALIZED COMMUNICATION"
> "*In one way or another, the programmed logic that can be
>built into modern electronic communication is reducing in part
>the passive uniformity of masscommunication.* Just as
>computer-controlled assembly lines can vary the product in a way
>that would be prohibitivly expensive otherwise, so too
>computer-controlled media production can bring into the realm of
>economic feasibility kinds of communication that take some
>account of the individuals to whom they are addressed."
This, so far, is more fantasy than reality. No doubt that the
sophistication of modern comm systems (e.g. Cable TV) can allow for the
user to select programming that is more personally interesting to the
user. The comm systems can allow the user to be more selective in
choosing what to consume. But so far, the user still has to be the one
to push the buttons -- few systems are set up in such a way that they
can automagically suppress the "commercials" or junk that exists in the
channel.
There are programs coming into use that allow a much finer
control in selecting items of potential interest, but so far, the
technology doesn't exist (a la Carl Sagan's "Contact") to reliably
filter out all the noise. Currently, one persons noise is too often
another persons' high quality signal.
One prime example is currently being debated in the news.admin
groups -- the furor over the presence of "anonymous server" postings in
some of the technical groups. One person decided that they (the anon
postings in sci.* groups) were noise, and unilaterally decided to
"cancel" the postings without recourse.
It is, of course, the result of a great deal of misunderstanding
about how the Usenet software itself operates, and of how the underlying
communication system *should not* make any value judgements about the
data passing through it.
(more below about human sensory bandwith as well)
>89 - "'...It would constitute the material beginning of a real
>World Brain.' (27) Wells foresaw that the encyclopedia might be a
>network; in 1936 he could not see how, and could not be sure.
>Fifty years later we can be.
> The first few ganglia of Wells' world brain already
>exist. Information retrieval has become a big business. The
>industry is also called electronic publishing, which probably
>describes it better, for it is the dissemination of information
>in electronic form..."
Yep, World Wide Web, Internet Gopher, Archie, and a whole slew
of distributed information management packages are in development. As
to whether these constitute the rudiments of a "World Brain" is an open
question. Certainly, many of the authors/developers have designed with
interoperation in mind, but not all of them mesh seamlessly.
Electronic publishing is also still in its infancy. There is a
long way to go before this screen I'm sitting in front of becomes a true
window into "the Matrix" or Cyberspace of fiction.
There is still the very real limitation of the bandwidth of the
human senses. And then, there is the question of basic literacy. What
good will it be to the average person that Cyberspace has all the
information of the ages accessible in an instant, if they don't have the
ability to comprehend that information? What will we do when the sheer
mass of information coming down the channel is more than can possibly be
managed?
Here, I am quite in sympathy with Rhonda and the plight of the
factory workers at Ford being denied the opportunity to learn computer
skills. Sometimes it *does* seem that there is a conspiracy to create a
new class division between those who can learn enough to control their
own lives, and those who are kept ignorant and poor. But I also
recognize the truth in the saying "Never ascribe to malice, that which
can be explained by stupidity."
-----------------------
So, what is it that *does* make NetNews so attractive?
For me, the lack of official controls has a lot to do with it.
Here, I can say nearly anything, and it will be judged pretty much on
its own merit. If it is off-the-wall, and incoherent, it will be
ignored; if it is well reasoned, and interesting, it will be noticed
and commented on.
There is also a highly attractive aspect of personal safety
involved here. If I say something that rubs someone the wrong way,
they may instigate actions that are unpleasant, but not fatal :-)
For example, I'd *like* to have a conversation with my next door
neighbor about Islam and dogs and the concepts of 'haram' and 'pneuma',
but its not likely to occur. Both of us are inhibited by things that
make it difficult for us to communicate about this topic in particular
without feeling extremely uncomfortable. If you and I were to meet
face-to-face, we might find ourselves quite unable to communicate for
some reason. This medium, however, allows me to ignore and overcome my
own emotional biases, and to concentrate on *what* I'm trying to say,
and not on thoughts along the lines of "is this person going to take
this wrong and punch my nose or something."
It is quite depressing to realize that this culture is getting
to this sort of a point. Where folks don't know their neighbors simply
because they are *afraid* to talk to them.
If my neighbors had access to this medium, they and I could
communicate about nearly anything without letting the fear get in the
way. I've had heated discussions with folks on this net about a number
of different topics, and I have flamewars where the respondents have
said any of a number of highly inflammatory remarks, and I've felt
really bad about some of these folks as a result. Then, in another
topic, in a different discussion, something else clicks, and I have
found that the person isn't quite so unreasonable, and, in fact, quite
respectable in more ways.
We can agree to disagree on some topics, but realize that we
share more in common than in disagreement.
Then, I can go to a meeting or trade show or social event, and
finally meet the person (in the flesh). Some of the folks that I most
enjoy talking to have started out as opponents in "flamewars" or
computer text arguments. (Then again, there are folks that I admired
via their texts, and who turn out to be rather irritating *in corpus*.)
I spend several hours a day, sitting here, reading and
reflecting on what passes in front of my nose. It is much simpler to
deal with -- I don't have to contend with background noises, or ask them
to repeat themselves because I didn't catch a phoneme or two, or worry
about having to suspend the conversation because I have to jump up and
deal with some other task or physical need, or deal with emotional
stereotypes induced by the culture based on some nonsense about class or
ethnic origin.
I can read an reflect for a while before choosing to respond or
not. And then, I can review and revise what I say before sending it out
for you (and the rest of the readers) to see. I can notice that a
phrase was badly constructed, or that a word was grossly misspelled in
such a manner that the meaning of the phrase was obscured or changed.
I can choose to ignore minor misspellings, and to ignore awkward
uses of grammar, concentrating instead on the meanings of what was said.
[I can also be difficult, and concentrate on the misspellings or bad
grammar, and be pedantic and petty.] Hopefully, I'll choose the former
course over the latter, since that will result in more lenience for my
own mistakes.
I can also manage the bandwidth of information passing in front
of my eyes by selection of channels in the medium. I can organize the
information in ways that I find personally useful. Again as an example,
here I site, in a particular account on my personal machine, reading a
variety of different newsgroups. This particular account is the one
that I use for reading and dealing with NetNews as NetNews. Here is the
meta-discussion, here is the focus on the medium. In other screen
windows, I have at least two other accounts, and there I organize the
topics without regard to the underlying technology. One of the accounts
deals with all the technical discussions that don't involve the net
itself, or interact with my "real job" in major ways, another account
deals with the "social" and recreational topics that I follow.
Each account has a different set of groups subscribed to, each
account has a different set of filters and kill files. In one account I
choose not to read any postings in the selected topics from certain
users and certain sites, yet in the other accounts, I may actually look
specifically for commentary from those same users or sites.
Why use different accounts? Why not, they are just another
level of organizing the information that flows through the net to my
eyes. I can "color code" the screen windows, so that a single glance
lets me know the sort of information I'm going to be dealing with. I
can have each account use different storage areas, so that I can balance
the load on the computer better. I can also use the different labels
attached to each account as a way of informing folks out there in the
net that I have a different "hat" on when dealing with a particular
topic area. It can serve to keep some of the sensitive, stereotypical
indicators out of the way of more "serious" technical discussions.
The different accounts can also reflect different communications
styles that I may want to use in different situations. This "news"
account reminds me that I'm trying to deal peer-to-peer with other
network users about the operation of the network, and will cause me to
be more technical and precise in some ways, and to be less argumentative
and to try to be less emotional. The "wolfe" account is where I deal
with the recreational subjects, and there I can be more relaxed and more
subjective, since the topic areas are more in that vein. Other accounts
remind me to affect different styles for different purposes.
Is this somehow "dishonest"? No way. I don't try to represent
that there is a different person doing these things, but I am trying to
represent that the *purposes* for each name and label are different, and
to try and isolate negative connotations from one account to the other.
Without such isolation, some folks would drop the account into their bit
bucket without hesitation over such trivial factors as what I ate for
dinner or what I said about such and such a topic that has no bearing on
the topic I'm talking about over "there". It is getting to the point
where folks are dropped into kill files for the simple "sin" of
misspelling one or two words in a post, or for posting more than 25
lines of commentary on a topic, or for including more than 20 lines of
quoted text from the previous message, or for participating in a cascade
or pun-fest. In order to be heard amidst the roar, I try to eliminate
the distractions that will cause prejudice in examining my ideas.
This *is* the ideal marketplace of ideas in many ways. The net
can be managed in such a way as to provide filters that allow me to try
and ignore the extraneous information that might tend to make me
discount an idea for the "wrong" reasons.
-----------------
This is much more disorganized that I really care to leave it,
but I hope that it gives some insight as to *how* and *why* I find
electronic communications so fascinating.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]