With great power comes great responsibility...

Listening to Anil Dash only serves to affirm my thoughts on how powerful the web and the control the major sites have on people's lives.

It appears the main issue is the internet becoming an economic marketplace.
Links to pages have moved from being 'of interest' to 'of something that will make the linking page page money'. True, personal pages still have the apparent sharing of interesting pages, yet many of those pages have come to the attention of computer users through promotional placement on sites that sell screen space for advertisements.
Start up companies have become businesses that often look to be bought out when they achieve 'enough' success, with 'enough' being the number of figures needed on the cheque to buy the company/application/etc. The issue then becomes what happens to the users' data that was on that company's website. Anil Dash gives the example of wedding photos being lost - unique memories being deleted at the signing off of a company and the sending of a warning email.  Personally, if FaceBook was to shutdown tomorrow, I would still have all my photographs... but I wouldn't have all my friends' photos, and I wouldn't have all my photographs ordered into nicely labelled albums with tags, dates and places. We trust the monopolizing internet companies and with this trust they have great power and influence over our internet and real lives!

Ultimately though, we, the users of the internet, will let them manipulate our lives like a spider lures a fly into its web. My FaceBook has changed its layout multiple times over the last six months... sometimes I complain, but only with muttering under my breath and not with an email to a FaceBook admin. Fortunately, I'm happy to report that now my FaceBook has a fantastic look - tabs to the side and a full list of those available to chat when I zoom the screen out a bit; although this is apparently not universal - another interesting fact that internet users do not have a universal experience. Other web pages have become streams too, unlike the initial page design of the social web. Yet, I would argue that this is not an issue for just the internet - it is typical of anything that has become monopolized by or popularized through only a few main institutions. With the majority of sites now becoming streams, including this set of blog posts you now see, there becomes familiarity for users - I haven't read an instruction manual, but I know menu pages are at the top or to the side, whilst the main content is a handy scroll through. The stream has become popular because of the internet becoming a constantly updated, constantly looked at system and people want to be able to access a lot of information quickly.

Yes, Anil Dash raises many interesting points. However, many technology-aware people probably already have an idea of these points.
Is there going to be a revolution?
Maybe.
We may grumble when GMail asks you to sign up to Google+, or YouTube blocks your video from showing in a country (it's always Germany) because of the music you added...
Yet, ultimately we will all continue to use the internet.

Rain in the UAE - either look at it through windows or go outside with your mac

We are in a time of change. The computer has not changed much over the years. Physically, it's been a keyboard, mouse and monitor system for a long time. Operating systems have generally just been updates of old ones with a couple of additional functions. Looking through the operating systems of old, it's interesting how recognisable they are to a modern day computer user.




Icons came pretty earlier on. Various windows for different tabs are used, whether they overlapped was up to the particular company. Microsoft slowly became dominant after Apple had started strong, and now the two stand at the top of the pile. Microsoft, now seen as the more boring company, had an arguably more radical start since Bill Gates and Paul Allen wanted to purely sell operating systems, not even computers, which was the foundation of Job's and Wozniak's enterprise.

As I watched videos of motion operated interfaces, music created through body movement, and ReacTj using blocks to create a DJ set, I wondered why I'm still sitting with a keyboard and screen on my lap - a disappointingly boring scene in comparison to those shown in the videos. However, it is one of great practicality and it is understandable why it has lasted so long. A box contains all the electrical gubbins needed for the computer to run, and then the keyboard is a wonderfully easy way to input data. It only requires minimal movement of fingers and the rest of the body can slump in a chair. We are a lazy society now... no one wants to have to move their arms around and jump up and down to type the word 'Hello'. For speed's sake the keyboard just works.

Yet, there is a movement towards movement! The Nintendo Wii did well until updates to Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation smashed it out of the market (it really should have had better graphics and not just relied on Mario!). Even then the XBox's Kinect has become popular. The difference between these and a computer is the element of time. "I'm going to check Facebook", "Let me just send this email quick". Although an inordinate amount of time is spent on one's Mac or PC, people can just be on it for five minutes at a time. In comparison, "I'm going to play FIFA or Lego Star Wars" is an activity for at least a minimum of half an hour with a significant, obvious return like a completed level or match. The longer input of motion with a game is taken into account as part of the longer total experience. This relates to music as well. It normally takes time to practice an instrument or get out decks to DJ. It is an activity that one dedicates too totally for that specific time. It's not like computers where you might be watching a movie, listening to music, sending an email AND be cooking all at once!

The biggest development that seems to be taking over is the tablet. I think this is more to do with portability than interface. Touch screens keep the quick input but will take time to takeover from the traditional keyboard as people's fingers get used to pressing up onto a display screen. The smaller display screen has become home to more obvious icons, though it is easier for traditional computer operating to move over to tablets, than tablet software to go back the other way... why Windows 8, why...

Computers used to look like this...

A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Code has always been about hiding a message. Whether a command of war or the information that forms a person's identity. Today we worry about people spying on us in our homes, looking through our internet history and hacking into our Facebook. In 1926, the worry was far more severe. Enigma had arrived. The threat of further wars after the First World War had become greater.


The unbreakable code had broken the resolve of the Allied cryptanalysts. Even with Hans-Thilo Schmidt, a disaffected German, providing information about the Enigma machine, the English and French cryptanalysts were unable to push towards a solution. Yet, the adversity of the Polish, as they were flanked by the powers of Russia and Germany, meant they could not stop trying to break the Enigma. Mathematicians were the new cryptanalysts of the time and Marian Rejewski, a timid Polish man in his early twenties, was to place the first pieces in the puzzle on the way to breaking the Enigma code. He found links and chains in the intercepted messages, which eventually led to finding the particular day key that the scrambler setting were set to. Rejewski spent only a year compiling his catalogue of chain lengths and with the few identifiable phrases, such as "arrive in Berlin", he had cracked the code!




In 1939, the Enigma code became invulnerable once more as the Germans used new scramblers and extra plugboards. Rejewski and the Polish cryptanalysts did not have the resources to cope. Hitler's blitzkrieg strategy was directly associated with the Enigma - "speed of attack through speed of communications."
But Rejewski's work had proven the Enigma was breakable and the British increased their efforts, again with a focus on combining the efforts of linguists with mathematicians and scientists. Bletchley Park was taking over from Room 40 as the home of code-breaking in the UK. It was there that Alan Turing, with the help of others, developed the bombe. The bombe was a electromechanical machine and with it the Allies could translate the Enigma code. Turing is now famous as the father of computer science as after the war he developed the Turing machine, considered the first model of a general purpose computer.

It is interesting to think that code-breaking ultimately comes down to the ingenuity of man and the battle of machines. Without Rejewski and Turing's brilliance, war and blitzkrieg could have been even more devastating. It was a case of Enigma vs bombe, the coding machine vs the solving machine. Nowadays the situation is not much different - people come up with coding techniques and encryption formulae, then machines carry out the process. The modern-day war is still filled with numbers, it just takes place on a digital platform.

Video killed the radio star and gave birth to the YouTube star

Video has the amazing ability to provide visual alongside a voice, to be a moving image that can be pure art and pure documentary, and to be a reflection of a person or culture.

Rosalind Krauss' wrote "Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism" about the capability of video, unlike other visual arts, to record and transmit at the same time - instant feedback, with the immediacy of a mirror. Video as art is an interesting concept. The feedback to the viewer it can create an immersive experience for the viewer, different to any still image, whether a photograph or painting. With this in mind, video may be a medium used to contradict or challenge the very thing it is meant to be, art.

Of the pieces mentioned in Krauss' writing, I found the most interesting to be Peter Campus' "mem and dor". It cleverly uses the immediacy of video feedback to oppose the 'normal' experience of art, which is to stand directly in front of the piece to observe it. Furthermore, a gallery viewer may find that they in turn become part of the art for another viewer as their image is displayed on the monitor!


As I was reading, the mention of ego and artists displaying themselves in video got my mind thinking about the explosion of vlogging, video blogging, over the last few years.
YouTube has become a platform for people to upload videos of themselves talking about whatever they like. Traditionally not thought of art, looking at the structure, content and audiences of these vlogs does raise some intriguing points. Structurally, most of the videos I'm referring to depend solely on one person, centred, looking directly at the camera/viewer, and with a fast edit that matches the quick speed of speech. The fourth wall is broken in a similar way to Acconci's "Centers".
Content-wise, the videos are often commentaries on the world, particularly social and cultural observations, and generally more direct than any other 'art' piece, since the vlogger/character relays their views in speech; they often even refer to their audience directly! Audiences for these vlogs are normally made up of under-30s, and these audiences are BIG, e.g. Jenna Marbles has over 11 million subscribers and her most popular video has been viewed over 50 million times; Charlieissocoollike has over 2 million subscribers and his most viewed video has over 9 million views - all it is is him attempting an American accent!

Vlogs are mainly recorded as individual opinions and personal issues displayed in video... however, audiences seem to flock to them as they find they can relate, or criticise, or learn from them. Sometimes these videos actually define a whole social issue, in the same way that many artists try to - Jenna Marbles most video is entitled "How To Trick People Into Thinking You're Good Looking", which addresses all the stereotypes and pressures put on modern society to 'look good'.

Why can't a bicycle stand up on its own?

... because it's too tired!

When I think of my bicycle, the word that comes to mind is ‘freedom’.

I enjoyed a childhood of being able to go to school and out into town without relying on my parents driving me everywhere, or train schedules dictating when ‘home time’ was. The other major plus of my bicycle was speed. It halved the journey time for walking into town, and even when I was unfortunate enough to have to walk, I found myself drifting into the cycle lane dreaming of being on my bike (much to the annoyance of actual cyclists). 

It was interesting to watch ‘Thoroughly Modern: The Bicycle’. In the same way that I think of a bike as freeing, so it was for the Edwardians. The bicycle became available to everyone, from the working class to the affluent middle class. Sitting upright on the two-wheeled contraption allowed the rider to see the world, as I do at home as I ride standing up to look over walls and other obstacles! The countryside began to see more visitors and cycling groups became loyal to their favourite pub. The bicycles design had come a long way from the Penny-farthing, thank goodness too because I struggle on bikes with thin handlebars, let alone bikes with one massive wheel!

 Bicycles are astounding too just purely looking at the ways they can be used. Commuters from around the world now choose to cycle to work and beat the morning traffic, students make their way to school, postmen do their local round, athletes race on the roads in various global tours, and recreational riders and professionals go off-road to get the adrenalin going! 

Stealing someone's coffee is called 'mugging'

I'm not a fan of coffee. Don't get me wrong, I see that it has potential as a social drink, as a stimulant, as a thing to be analysed and discussed, yet for me the taste and temperature will always be off putting. Unlike the seventeenth century European, I, as a twenty-first century European, do not require coffee as an uncontaminated drink. For those Early Modern Europeans, coffee was regarded as the antithesis of alcohol - I would be interested to ask the question today of which beverage people could choose if they could only have one: beer or coffee?

As I sit typing at my desk in the Middle East, it is appropriate to note that coffee originated in the Arab world. Coffee had reached Mecca and Cairo by 1510 and became a social drink, sold in the markets and offered in dedicated coffee houses, the Starbucks of the times, and respectable people could come together in these places. Interestingly, religious law found coffee hard to place - it wasn't alcohol, but it did kind of intoxicate a person - there was even a big meeting of religious leaders in 1511, Mecca, to try to answer the question, (based upon the Arab's modern love of coffee, I guess the answer was that coffee was 'legal').

Continuing from their Arab roots, coffee houses triumphed in seventeenth century London and continue to triumph around most of the world. In my home city alone, there is a Starbucks, Cafe Nero, Cafe Rouge, Boston Tea Party, Coffee Mocha, Carwardine's, Bird and Carter... each of which is less than 100m away from the other... in many cases less than 20m! Coffee has become part of a greater social culture - for businessmen and women, for mums, for students, for tourists, and many more.

In Ethiopia, where I visited last week for Eid, they have a coffee ceremony, taking time to roast the beans and then pour out the coffee in prearranged porcelain cups. The ceremony gives the participants three cups of coffee each. Though coffee is a stimulant that speeds up life, I feel that this ceremony is a nice way of slowing life and allow one to ponder...

Ponder things like, "How fast can a coffee powered car go?"

Through the looking glass

In physics, the term glass refers to a solid formed by rapid melt quenching.

In other sciences, the term glass refers to every solid that possesses a non-crystalline structure and that exhibits a glass transition when heated towards the liquid state. 

In everyday use, the term glass refers to a material composed of silica, sodium oxide and lime, which is commonly used to make windows and vessels. (Thank you to Wikipedia for those...)

This is all sounds quite scientific. Appropriately so, since, without glass, science would not be the same beast that it is today. 

Glass, with its glorious transparency, mouldability and relative toughness, has made it an essential material for science. Microscopes using light and magnifying glasses have allowed us to explore a microscopic world that was previously hidden from man's gaze. Similarly, the ability to measure liquids in a vessel was made a lot easier when beakers and measuring cylinders were created from glass. These vessels could also be heated and moved without losing their shape, all whilst still being able to observe the reactions that were happening. Prisms refracted light and revealed the colours of the rainbow from a single beam of white light.

Glass was possibly the first time a transparent, safe barrier could be put between an observer and subject, with shaping enhancing the viewing e.g. magnifying.

The potential for the creation of a diverse range of glass products is the reason why glass was and is still valued. Yet, before the advent of scientific instruments, glass was being used as a substitute material for the fashioning of established tools. Obsidian, naturally occurring volcanic glass, was used by Stone Age societies for sharp cutting tools, perhaps due to it being easier to craft and fulfilling the cutting purpose better than rock. Not just for pure practical use, glass jewellery, beads and artworks are examples of the aesthetic beauty that can be attributed to glass products too.

Want to hear a joke about a fork and a spoon?

You don't want to hear a joke about a fork and spoon, oh... sporkward,,,

As I've looked at tool over the last few weeks, it has been interesting to see how culture influences tool use, and how tools affect culture. This is possibly most apparent when looking at cutlery and utensils.

It should be obvious. Food is a necessity of life, so tools linked to food were some of the first to be developed, for example the preparation of meat using sharpened stones and blunt rocks. Nowadays, the utensils that perform a single purpose well or many, various purposes adequately are most favourable - Japanese-crafted steel knives are notoriously sharp, and the Chinese tou can split firewood, gut fish, crushing garlic,  mincing meat...

Since these tools have been present for many, many years, in various forms or another, they have come to be identifiers of cultures, they define particular practices. The fork was used in Italy during the Middle Ages because pasta was well established. Threads of pasta could be twirled around the three spikes for easier consumption. Chinese cuisine involves the sharing of dishes and chopsticks are the perfect tool to pick at the dishes on the table. Having to pack light for camping is one of the reasons why the spork has become a popular utensil, the other reason probably being the novelty!

An intriguing chicken and egg question can be asked. Not the question of which utensil is best for eating roast chicken and boiled eggs, but rather asking whether the cuisine and culture influence the design of the tool, or whether the tool caused a type of cuisine to develop!

I would like to end by saying how tools, particularly utensils and knives, can be incredibly symbolic of a culture. If a person saw chopsticks, most likely they would think of Eastern Asia and Chinese cuisine. Tongs are associated with outdoor eating, for example barbecues in Australia. Samurai blades are natural links to Japan, martial arts and possible violence (- you know there will be action in a Hollywood movie when the characters get their samurai swords out.

The tools of a population are great identifiers of culture, and culture has a dominating impact on tools and their use. Food is a massive part of culture and therefore it is unsurprising that utensils and cutlery have become so significant.

Give me the power of man's red flower

It’s interesting to think of a world without fire. No bonfires for s’mores, that’s obviously the main concern. 

No, it’s true; a world without fire would be a very different world indeed. For many people, the origin of fire is with cavemen and hitting rocks against each other… or it’s something that is never really given any thought. Yet, fire means different things for different people, which is especially recognizable in the origin stories of fire.

Perhaps the original dragon and possessor of fire was the iguana. In Central America, this was thought

to be the case and the story goes that the iguana climbed towards the sky and took fire with him, after quarrelling with his wife… so Mrs Iguana is to blame for why humans didn’t have fire sooner. Interestingly, man commissioned birds to try and bring the fire back to the ground. After that failed, the trusty possum (opossum) reclaimed the fire for man… why a possum I’m not sure, personally I don’t find them the most inspiring of animals!

The Sakalava and Tsimihety of Madagascar said Soldiers of the Sun (flames) tried and defeat the supremely powerful Thunder. Considering Madagascar is one of the most bounteous places for wildlife, it’s interesting that, unlike the Quiches of Guatemala, they did not relate animals and fire. A cool story, but battling with Thunder never sounds like a good idea. Thunder only won because ‘of his old friends the clouds’ who literally rained on the Flame’s parade. 

The fire was put out and had to retreat into mountains, stones and sticks. Hence, today we have

volcanoes and can start fires with stones and sticks.

Finally, a look to Tasmania. Was it two black men or the stars that are the origin of fire. Two black men made fire with wood and then ‘no more was fire lost in our land’… bit of an anticlimax considering the other tales of origin. The cool thing in this story is that the bite of a blue can bring people, who appear dead, back to life!

Slurp

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Wheels On The Bus Go Round And Round

The concept of wheels is introduced to us at an early age. I still have fond memories of singing the bus nursery rhyme. Yet, to delve into history is to discover that the wheel was not a caveman development.

Potter’s wheels are thought to have been around in Mesopotamia 3500 B.C. It was only three hundred years later that the wheels on the chariot started to go round and round. The true potential of the wheel was realised as the Greeks invented the wheelbarrow that carried the load; Western Europe was revolutionised by the water wheel (no pun intended), which powered milling and provided running water; the Arab windmills inspired the European Crusaders to build their own.

The next development that man wanted to achieve, and there are still dreams of it today, is perpetual motion – making the wheels on the bus go round and round and round and round… only having to give it a little push at the start.

With the breath of God, windmills were seen to turn continuously with no visible input. Although we can know describe wind patterns, the mystery of perpetual motion and continuous power production is still a baffling one. Archimedean pumps, weird screw configurations and wheels with various weights hanging from them were all valid attempts at solving the problem.

Salisbury Cathedral Clock

Married to this, was the use of wheels and cogs to measure time for substantial periods of…, um, time. Clocks could be developed that only needed winding a couple of times a day and stayed accurate. I make this segue to mechanical clocks because it just so happens that Salisbury, which is home to me, is also home to the oldest working clock in the world. The clock resides in Salisbury Cathedral and dates from about 1386. It’s an impressive sight when you consider its age. It sits like a bare skeleton of a machine and looking into its innards you can see the simple set of cogs and wheels that the weighted ropes are wrapped around. Two large wheels dominate the sides of the machine as they are required to wind the whole thing back up again.

Lastly, an interesting point of note is that, although we now take the wheel for granted and it is used in a multitude of modern ways, it is not always the solution. As I write this in the Emirates, it should be noted that before roads had been built throughout the country, camels still trumped wheeled transport for travel over the sand dunes. So the wheels on the bus in the desert sand get stuck and stuck, stuck and stuck.

Guns that squat

Language is a beautiful tool. It enables people to pass on knowledge to others, or hide knowledge from others. It can become part of someone's identity, for better or worse. Language can even make us obliged to think in a particular way.

In the Second World War, encryption of messages was a key part of making sure your officers knew what to do, whilst the enemy did not. Machines were tools designed specifically for this purpose; however the code that could not be broken was language. Navajos were recruited by the Marine Corps to act as code talkers. There language was unlike any European or Asian language and there tribe had not been visited by German students. Fortunately for the U.S. Americans, the tribesmen were very patriotic and willing to adapt their language for the purpose of military messages. They described military vehicles as animals, which already had names in their language, and they even added words for use in spelling out the names of places. Their code was never broken. It’s interesting that the Marines had to trust something they could not understand.

With the Navajos, their unique language was beneficial. Yet, if you look at languages that are spoken in large populations, you might find that the populations’ thoughts are shaped by how the language they use. This is not to say that they cannot describe concepts for which there language has no words, just look at the Navajos who described mortars as “Guns that squat”. No, it is deeper than that. English does not use genders for nouns, whereas French and German give inanimate objects genders, and you can always tell if a person has been with their male friends or with their female friend. This difference in thought may not just give greater emphasis to gender, it can also make the mind obliged to be aware of things others do not even necessarily value. Guugu Yimithirr speakers language gives position and directions in terms of the compass: North, East, South, West. They do not give position relative to themselves, e.g. left of me, right of you. Due to this, it has been found that these people have a subconscious knowledge of which way is North, East, South, West. Their superhero name would be ‘The Human Compass’, although quite how they would fight crime, I don’t know. It’s impressive how it appears their language has affected their mind and body in such a way that this ‘superpower’ has been unlocked.

In contrast to this, the environment can have an effect on your body that in turn affects your language. Scholars can recognise those language developed at high altitude based on the use of ejective consonants – rapid bursts of air exhaled while making a sound! As is often the case, tools are affected by the environment where they are developed and humans then adapt it further as new purposes need to be fulfilled.

Men are tools

This year, a contributor to the Huffington Post wrote about the use of tools by humans and animals, and that really we are not special in our use of tools, rather it is common among many animals, particularly our close relatives, chimpanzees.
Now, I'm passionate about wildlife and making others aware of the beauty and complexities of the natural world, so getting the opportunity to express this in a class that would appear human centric is fantastic.  As someone who likes animals, I often ask, or get asked, which animal I would be if I was reincarnated (or something to that effect). Most people answer with a top predator or a conventionally pretty animal - killer whale, tiger, butterfly, or, appropriate for the region, a falcon.

Fair enough, it would be cool to be a falcon - super speed, flight, the ability to take on prey larger than yourself, and the striking appearance. Yet, I like to throw a different hat into the ring. 

What about being a crow? Personally, I would be a Carrion Crow, they just seem the sleekest of all the corvids (the crow family). Crows are incredibly intelligent, possibly to the same extent as apes. They live together with an elaborate social structure and have mastered many tools. Sticks are not only used by corvids for food, poking at insects living in holes and other hard to reach places, but also for defence - New Caledonian crows probe a rubber spider with a twig! Furthermore, they sometimes even use a stick to get another stick, which is better suited for the task... that's cool.

And even Aesop's fable of 'The Crow and the Pitcher' has been tested in real life and the crows were intelligent enough to actively drop stones in order to raise the water level of a container so they could gain access to a nut. 

As I thought, I have overdone the introduction in my enjoyment of typing about the awesomeness of wildlife.

So, here's the crux of this blog post and the reason for what I hope is a witty title...

Is there an example of an animal using humans as a tool? Well, yes, kind of. Crows have adapted to urban life and taken advantage of the tools of the city. In Japan, crows are known to try and crack nuts on the hard surface of the road, but that's only a little bit intelligent. The really intelligent thing is that some of them have started dropping the nuts purposefully onto pedestrian crossings, then they wait for a human in a car to run over the nut, splitting it open. When the green man shows that the crossing is safe, the crow descends from its perch to safely reap its reward. Through observation the crow has been able to put together a beautiful solution to how to crack its nut - humans (okay, cars and the convention of road safety) are the tool.

An initial look at tools...

Yeah, so this is the first time I've ever blogged!

I'm using Blogger as a tool to keep a journal on my thoughts for my university class about Tools - their uses, their designs and their impact on society and culture.

Proper design of tools, everyday items, is difficult. Usability is the key and even that is determined by various other details. Simple designs that suggest their use or how to use them are often the most effective. Scissors are a great example - sharp blades so the users know they are for cutting and the two holes naturally accommodate the fingers to hold the scissors. A person could see a photograph of a pair of scissors, without ever having used scissors before, and be able to guess how the tool should be used - a conceptual model can be created in the mind and no instruction manual is used. Certain designs also have affordances, details such as shape or materials that people associate with particular attributes. Personally I have a rugged, underwater camera and, like most of the current rugged camera models, has exposed rubber and a quirky, angled shape - 'Oh, rubber, that's a tough, durable material, so the camera must be too'.

Sticking with my camera, the other important parts of usable design can be illustrated. Controls are visible with each button having a symbol to identify its purpose and there is feedback when each of these buttons is pressed, maybe a beep, maybe a change of menu on the screen. 

Usability is key because you then have a basic product; once you have a basic product, you can make it beautiful! Beautiful aesthetics are important to reinforce the positives and to influence the mood. Teapots all have the same function, yet aesthetics determine whether they are used when guests come, or if they are used as decoration in the home.

Inspiration for this blogpost and recommended reads are ‘The Design Of Everyday Things’ and ‘Emotion and Design: Attractive Things WorkBetter’, both by Donald A. Norman