CART211: Response Catch-up

Magic in the Stone

I felt the most interesting parts of this reading was how it connected the seemingly very different things I’ve been learning about in my other classes (mostly Boolean algebra and java coding). The idea of creating a computer from switches wasn’t new to me, however, the idea of the levels of abstraction creating a sort of magic was not something I had thought of before. Magic as a continuously abstracted and built upon base of binary was very interesting to me, and I might use that idea in a fiction project in the future.

The early computers seemed very game-like, with simple rule-sets and simple mechanics to create something that reacted to ‘coding’. However, I had a lot of trouble figuring out his diagrams. Though I could understand the circuits (and liked how they connected nicely with the and and or of Boolean logic), the mechanical ones were difficult to grasp, I supposed because I haven’t seen similar diagrams before and don’t know how they would actually move or function.

Hydraulics was an novel take on the binary/analog idea. I suppose instead of it being ‘and’ and ’or’ driven it would be ‘enough of both’ and ‘enough of either’, where ‘enough’ triggers the switch. It becomes less Boolean and more functions and relations nested in Booleans. Eg: P(x,y,z): (x+y=z)

Though removing the binary from the computer might be an eventual goal, I’m not really sure if we would want a computer that could be at the most basic level is uncertain (when something can be neither true nor false).

I admit that his descriptions of the inner workings of a modern computer with “restoring logic” really lost me, especially the idea of how transistors conserve the voltage like a valve conserving water pressure. I suppose I’ll understand it better once I take COMP 228: System Hardware next term.

 

Ubiquitous Computing

It was interesting seeing how Jun Rekimoto first presented a problem, suggested a solution, went into a conceptualization for the user, then looked for ways to give the user positive feedback from the action. It seems like a really simple idea when you first look at it, I suppose that shows how well people would be able to adapt to it. It seems simple only when you look at it from a point of view that ignores the technology behind it, but I can see how this kind of view-point would be best for creating interfaces that work hard to interact with humans and not the other way around.

The idea of computers which are aware of context is one that really expands what computers can do and how well they can react to people. For some examples: a computer that knows when the user is stressed could improve performance and cut back on background tasks so that programs run more smoothly, or a context sensitive computer might control an environment, being playful (projecting interesting images on random objects), serious (controlling light and sound to increase productivity) or even useful (projecting a clock on the wall in front of you to remind you of an appointment, etc.)

Seeing as how much of a problem it was trying to create a “universal remote” for TV/video players, I see this running up against resistance from the technology makers. If you can only use a specific input device for a product then they can sell more input-devices. The kinect is interesting in that way, since the controller is actually a camera, however, since each object having it’s own camera might get cluttered as well, the idea of unifying input is probably going to be very important in the future. Once a company has spent the money to develop a novel input system, however, it seem unlikely to want to share it among competitors. This is definitely a hurdle for unified input like Jun’s pick-and-drop.