I know this comes up over and again, and it is an entire cause-du-guerre for many a internet users. Yet once again I will step back from this status quo and attempt to flesh out a compelling thread, an understanding framed with the ideas of manufacturing process .
First lets look at my claim that software isn't innovative. I make this claim out of the simple observation that there are only a very limited number of highly similar processes to produce software. Unlike the tangible world, and tangible manufacturing processes software can only be written in a relatively small number of languages. So despite minor syntax distinctions the only way to code is to write.
This very fact by itself shows just how little space is left open to innovation. When we discuss material objects we can often find ourselves in the midst of a classical Platonic philosophical discussion.
"What makes a chair a chair?"
"What is the 'idea' or 'form' of a chair?"
It is in this middle of these distinctions that we now find ourselves. Software, in its written expression, is dangerously close to it's ideal form. After all we express our ideas in writing.
In contrast, the classic American cliche for the innovator is one who "builds a better mouse trap." The mousetrap is the form and the patent expressions are unique, creative or innovative ways to improve a tangible functioning process. The same can be said of manufacturing processes. If someone has already patented a unique chemical production process then why should anyone who didn't invest the work or time into it be entitled to any cut of the resultant profits?
Often it seems that many technologists and hacktivists think that by loosening the restrictions on patents that we will have a sudden ground-swell of innovation. This is an untested claim at best, and I think that whatever innovation that such a loosening does produce will be short lived and anti-climatic.
Despite all the ongoing discussions over patent reform, no one wishes to address the whole picture. None of those pushing for change wish to acknowledge the narrowness and lack of innovative space that exists in the software industry. There are only so many ways to make use of a process before "it all has been done before."
Software and the next killer app are all the talk of the internet, but we need to take a step back and question just how "innovative" written-process products really are. There is a reason no one is making software innovations, and it isn't because of patents, it is because there is little innovative space to left in the software marketplace.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Common Data In The Anti-Commons: Intangible Data vs. Live Data
I've been recently toying with an odd thought experiment. Is there any fundamental difference between a person's (user's) actions on a public street and say that same user's actions online. In my mind I see this a sort of odd politicking by some who seem to think that their actions online should be considered private.
What do we make of such a claim? And to this end there is a new concept developed, to the best of my knowledge by, Joseph Turow. First let me state I have yet to read his book, as I have many other obligations. But, then again I've never claimed to be an expert, and if we work within my own framework Mr. Turow is a "generalist" like anybody else when we deal with policy and human interaction. So with that said I still think some ruminations on this concept might provide some insight into what appears to be one of the greatest dichotomy of the digital age.
This dichotomy is one of Live Data vs. Intangible Data. These two terms are somewhat generalized, and I will attempt to clarify where possible, but again we are dealing in terms of people and as such cannot rightfully expect to develop any exacting or precision measure.
What do I mean by, Live Data. This is the sort of data you develop in context. To use an example that I make great use of here, imagine that you are at a coffee shop. Here you physically meet people, and simultaneously develop cursory data about them. You see that the barrista is wearing a green apron, and sneakers, the customers are all dressed to reflect their own tastes and practices. Some are dressier then others and others are more comfortable. The point I wish to make is that you infer data about these individuals based on the data that you see these people present in public.
Now what do I mean by Intangible Data? Intangible data is of a similar sort; however, it is gathered from ones actions at different places. Your grocery store, or in this case our coffee shop collects this data either with or without a discount card. These are the sort of things that you might buy from that location. This is also the sorts of information that is commonly tracked by ones clicks online.
This is a major affront to some people it seems, and Mr. Turow covers this with a concept of "information respect." I think this is a noble sounding idea, however at the same time to me it seems to originate out of a desire to obscure the truth. Indeed the example he gave was of a family receiving targeted adds due to their weight, and eating habits. These adds, might, might be offensive, Mr. Turow did not discuss how such a matter would be addressed.
Indeed one might argue that such targeted individuals may indeed need or deserve intervention (as Mr. Turow is suggesting a one size fits all morality (a.k.a political correctness) rather then a precisely applied individual one). Yet I get ahead of myself, we will return to these implications.
Back to our thought experiment, in meatspace it OK for me to infer that someone is "overweight." Yet say that precise data points that have been offered up publicly in one's profile really do prove that one person is "overweight" then we can see the roots of such calls for "information respect."
We don't seem overly concerned when we sign up for a store's discount card, yet somehow this same seems so offensive when the same practice in the online environment? I think this emotion extends from people's shear unfamiliarity. It is common to distrust something that is unknown and unseen. And in this way I see Mr. Turow lashing out at this practice.
Mr. Turow might take issue with my example of someones public data profile. As I haven't read the book I am not sure of his position on this, he seems most interested in inferred data. Yet that is the heart of my point. I can meet someone in public and infer the same data that is being inferred by someone's data footprints online, and I fail to see a difference in how this practice is any different then the fundamental human impulse to understand the world around us.
In essence the dichotomy stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of the Internet. We want think that since we access individually that our actions should be seen as we are when we use our computers, in private (even in a public space with others around us). Yet this defies the very reason we use the Internet, to communicate, which is a social activity. We engage in the same behavior offline, and know that our actions and buys in stores are tracked by the seller.
The hacker community will tell you that we are still coming to terms with technology. They are right in this regard; however, they still do not fully recognize just how egalitarian the Internet really is. A raw society that is not a monolith, not defined by a handful of websites, and certainly much more human then machine. Thus more data is "public" then ever before, and simultaneously an individuals political "optics" have never been more important.
NPR: Fresh Air
How Companies Are 'Defining Your Worth' Online
Cory Doctorow @ 28c3
The Coming War On General Computation
What do we make of such a claim? And to this end there is a new concept developed, to the best of my knowledge by, Joseph Turow. First let me state I have yet to read his book, as I have many other obligations. But, then again I've never claimed to be an expert, and if we work within my own framework Mr. Turow is a "generalist" like anybody else when we deal with policy and human interaction. So with that said I still think some ruminations on this concept might provide some insight into what appears to be one of the greatest dichotomy of the digital age.
This dichotomy is one of Live Data vs. Intangible Data. These two terms are somewhat generalized, and I will attempt to clarify where possible, but again we are dealing in terms of people and as such cannot rightfully expect to develop any exacting or precision measure.
What do I mean by, Live Data. This is the sort of data you develop in context. To use an example that I make great use of here, imagine that you are at a coffee shop. Here you physically meet people, and simultaneously develop cursory data about them. You see that the barrista is wearing a green apron, and sneakers, the customers are all dressed to reflect their own tastes and practices. Some are dressier then others and others are more comfortable. The point I wish to make is that you infer data about these individuals based on the data that you see these people present in public.
Now what do I mean by Intangible Data? Intangible data is of a similar sort; however, it is gathered from ones actions at different places. Your grocery store, or in this case our coffee shop collects this data either with or without a discount card. These are the sort of things that you might buy from that location. This is also the sorts of information that is commonly tracked by ones clicks online.
This is a major affront to some people it seems, and Mr. Turow covers this with a concept of "information respect." I think this is a noble sounding idea, however at the same time to me it seems to originate out of a desire to obscure the truth. Indeed the example he gave was of a family receiving targeted adds due to their weight, and eating habits. These adds, might, might be offensive, Mr. Turow did not discuss how such a matter would be addressed.
Indeed one might argue that such targeted individuals may indeed need or deserve intervention (as Mr. Turow is suggesting a one size fits all morality (a.k.a political correctness) rather then a precisely applied individual one). Yet I get ahead of myself, we will return to these implications.
Back to our thought experiment, in meatspace it OK for me to infer that someone is "overweight." Yet say that precise data points that have been offered up publicly in one's profile really do prove that one person is "overweight" then we can see the roots of such calls for "information respect."
We don't seem overly concerned when we sign up for a store's discount card, yet somehow this same seems so offensive when the same practice in the online environment? I think this emotion extends from people's shear unfamiliarity. It is common to distrust something that is unknown and unseen. And in this way I see Mr. Turow lashing out at this practice.
Mr. Turow might take issue with my example of someones public data profile. As I haven't read the book I am not sure of his position on this, he seems most interested in inferred data. Yet that is the heart of my point. I can meet someone in public and infer the same data that is being inferred by someone's data footprints online, and I fail to see a difference in how this practice is any different then the fundamental human impulse to understand the world around us.
In essence the dichotomy stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of the Internet. We want think that since we access individually that our actions should be seen as we are when we use our computers, in private (even in a public space with others around us). Yet this defies the very reason we use the Internet, to communicate, which is a social activity. We engage in the same behavior offline, and know that our actions and buys in stores are tracked by the seller.
The hacker community will tell you that we are still coming to terms with technology. They are right in this regard; however, they still do not fully recognize just how egalitarian the Internet really is. A raw society that is not a monolith, not defined by a handful of websites, and certainly much more human then machine. Thus more data is "public" then ever before, and simultaneously an individuals political "optics" have never been more important.
NPR: Fresh Air
How Companies Are 'Defining Your Worth' Online
Cory Doctorow @ 28c3
The Coming War On General Computation
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Information Abundance Battleline.
What do we make of the "openness" of the internet? In theory this should be a good thing right? The more information we have the more informed decision we should be able to make right?
I think this contention is worth a second look. On its face I believe that this is more or less true. We do make more informed decisions about that which we have knowledge. So to that end we can say that the internet increases the depth of our knowledge on subject that we also know to some depth.
Now, what of this same effect does this have on subject that we have very little knowledge of? Does the internet get us the proper answers, all the time? This is what I am afraid is a great pitfall in the openness, and abundance of information on the internet.
If you don't agree I would simply ask you to spend quality time reading about.com, yahoo answers, or even wikipedia. There is a great deal of information that is of questionable value that is readily available. Yet the internet is so "open" that we have no quality check on the source of our information. We have no clue who the authority is and if they are qualified to answer the question being asked.
Instead of seeing the internet, in-and-of-itself, capable of producing "openness" in the attitude of its users, quite the opposite, we see the abundance of information take on a political quality. The small intra-discipline battles are writ large and public. And anyone who doesn't know their ass for their elbow inside of said discipline is caught up along those battle lines, and are subsequently forced to take sides. And here's the real kicker, they are forced to take sides prior to gathering enough information to make an informed decision.
This reality was brought home to me during a discussion with a mutual friend at a recent gathering. As I was talking to him I was struck at how similar this in-person discussion mirrored my online experience of the same. Here my critiques were rebuffed in the self-same group-thought responses. Sure I was talking to an individual who could independently reach his own conclusions, yet here he was simply repeating what anyone of his political leanings might say while online.
So what to make of it? Yes the "openness" of the internet increases the depth of one's knowledge, but only after one has gained a sure footing and knows what direction they are moving within that discipline. When it comes to other broad matters such as politics or subjects that one is personally ill-informed, then the "openness" of the internet user risks co-option into something that they do not fully understand, and perhaps it is the co-opter's intention that this is so.
A perfect expression of this pwning, is evident through both anonymous and OWS. OWS is a supposedly open movement that is instead highly insular, from the Wired article,
The internet's abundance of information seemingly serves to force us to come to conclusions faster. The subsequent loss of time for thought makes many of these decisions "primed" as opposed to "reasoned" Or in other words we do not seek to gather more data when confronted with another's data set, whether that data might be questionable or not.
This priming also explains the endless frustrated comments that are so prevalent online. To be fair I think many of those who put out lots and lots of posts online suffer this lack of reasoning. The pathos of their remarks are obvious, they are angry at the government or angry at this company, it then is no wonder that if the leaders of the online world are worked into self-righteous and pathetic fits of rage, that the comments below will mirror that.
There are some websites that do amazingly well at maintaining decorum, and they do so with little extra moderation. How is this even possible? They do so in several ways. First, they do not post leading articles or blogs that are full of emotional pleas and calls-to-arms; they instead post reasoned and layered responses. Second, they acknowledge their comments, this generally entails actually responding to people who do comment, this isn't necessarily at a rate of one for one; but these bloggers, at the very least, don't ignore the critiques that have been posted. Instead they either refute them, usually with more evidence, or else they acknowledge it by promising to spend time addressing the critique.
All of this seems very obvious. If you invite someone to your house just to ignore them, of course they will become deeply confused and frustrated. How would you expect to feel in a similar situation?
So it seems that the abundance of information is a double edged sword, it is great for those who have the depth of knowledge to actually collaborate, but to those who are not in that position, this abundance of information can serve to catch them up into a web of confusion and pathos with very little precious linkage to actual explanatory data.
I think this contention is worth a second look. On its face I believe that this is more or less true. We do make more informed decisions about that which we have knowledge. So to that end we can say that the internet increases the depth of our knowledge on subject that we also know to some depth.
Now, what of this same effect does this have on subject that we have very little knowledge of? Does the internet get us the proper answers, all the time? This is what I am afraid is a great pitfall in the openness, and abundance of information on the internet.
If you don't agree I would simply ask you to spend quality time reading about.com, yahoo answers, or even wikipedia. There is a great deal of information that is of questionable value that is readily available. Yet the internet is so "open" that we have no quality check on the source of our information. We have no clue who the authority is and if they are qualified to answer the question being asked.
Instead of seeing the internet, in-and-of-itself, capable of producing "openness" in the attitude of its users, quite the opposite, we see the abundance of information take on a political quality. The small intra-discipline battles are writ large and public. And anyone who doesn't know their ass for their elbow inside of said discipline is caught up along those battle lines, and are subsequently forced to take sides. And here's the real kicker, they are forced to take sides prior to gathering enough information to make an informed decision.
This reality was brought home to me during a discussion with a mutual friend at a recent gathering. As I was talking to him I was struck at how similar this in-person discussion mirrored my online experience of the same. Here my critiques were rebuffed in the self-same group-thought responses. Sure I was talking to an individual who could independently reach his own conclusions, yet here he was simply repeating what anyone of his political leanings might say while online.
So what to make of it? Yes the "openness" of the internet increases the depth of one's knowledge, but only after one has gained a sure footing and knows what direction they are moving within that discipline. When it comes to other broad matters such as politics or subjects that one is personally ill-informed, then the "openness" of the internet user risks co-option into something that they do not fully understand, and perhaps it is the co-opter's intention that this is so.
A perfect expression of this pwning, is evident through both anonymous and OWS. OWS is a supposedly open movement that is instead highly insular, from the Wired article,
“You have to know someone in real life who sponsors you,” said KnutsonReally? This is "openness." The reality of the situation looks much different, at least from my perspective. My unfortunate discussion whence I agreed more then I disagreed still didn't bring me any closer to a group that I do share values with. And in fact that I am pushed away as part of the problem only deepens my concern.
The internet's abundance of information seemingly serves to force us to come to conclusions faster. The subsequent loss of time for thought makes many of these decisions "primed" as opposed to "reasoned" Or in other words we do not seek to gather more data when confronted with another's data set, whether that data might be questionable or not.
This priming also explains the endless frustrated comments that are so prevalent online. To be fair I think many of those who put out lots and lots of posts online suffer this lack of reasoning. The pathos of their remarks are obvious, they are angry at the government or angry at this company, it then is no wonder that if the leaders of the online world are worked into self-righteous and pathetic fits of rage, that the comments below will mirror that.
There are some websites that do amazingly well at maintaining decorum, and they do so with little extra moderation. How is this even possible? They do so in several ways. First, they do not post leading articles or blogs that are full of emotional pleas and calls-to-arms; they instead post reasoned and layered responses. Second, they acknowledge their comments, this generally entails actually responding to people who do comment, this isn't necessarily at a rate of one for one; but these bloggers, at the very least, don't ignore the critiques that have been posted. Instead they either refute them, usually with more evidence, or else they acknowledge it by promising to spend time addressing the critique.
All of this seems very obvious. If you invite someone to your house just to ignore them, of course they will become deeply confused and frustrated. How would you expect to feel in a similar situation?
So it seems that the abundance of information is a double edged sword, it is great for those who have the depth of knowledge to actually collaborate, but to those who are not in that position, this abundance of information can serve to catch them up into a web of confusion and pathos with very little precious linkage to actual explanatory data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)