A brief look at two men who were critical to the development of the modern computer. A shame more people don't immediately recognize their names while "Steve Jobs" is a household name. These two men have gravitas like few others in the world of computers. Their importance cannot be emphasized enough. Even though the media seemed to simply gloss over the death of Dennis Ritchie, let it be said here that both of their names are sacrosanct. In the video below, Thompson and Ritchie touch on how UNIX is used at Bell Labs, its design and makeup, and the purpose behind UNIX. You'll even catch a few hints of the UNIX philosophy in the presentation. Needless to say, the UNIX philosophy is the touchstone and guiding rod for UNIX development and improvement. The principles are timeless. The video is only a couple minutes long so it warrants a few viewings.
While working on another post, I decided that I could get more perspective on the subject by visiting one of my favorite websites: textfiles.com. For those of you who don't know, and shame on you for not knowing, textfiles.com is a website dedicated to archiving the many textfiles distributed in the 1980s. Even though the website now archives files before and after that time, its purpose has remained the same. It's purpose is to preserve the works, ideas, and culture of the early web-runners. The website continues to be both a useful resource and inspiration to me, and it does help me generate an idea or two from time to time. While browsing through the old files, I made a rather novel observation. These files, while containing text and text alone, are fascinating to read. And I'm not necessarily referring to the topics or ideas contained in those files either. These files are a pleasure to read even though they don't contain any images, sounds, or animations. Hell, the text isn't even formatted in most of these files! Yet, they are still beautiful. But why are text files beautiful? Needless to say, text files are all about the text. They don't have any images, animations, or sounds. Just text. So how does an author capture a reader's attention without resorting to stylized themes and color schemes? The answer is simple enough. To capture the reader's attention, the author must write well. A finely crafted text file is a wonder to behold. And is as yummy as an 8 oz. sirloin steak, cooked medium-rare. The authors weren't virgins at their craft either. They were veterans whose mettle had been routinely tested on the BBS battlefields. After all, they did receive feedback on their posts. And the feedback wasn't sugar-coated. Additionally, text files, by their nature and aesthetic, seem very direct and honest. What you see is what you get with a text file. No clandestine tricks or hidden fees. No ads or bullshit. A text file is just the author's pure, undiluted opinion on a subject. Not to everyone's liking, but this frankness is very refreshing to me. Sincerity is hard to come by today. In addition to the above, text files are an iconic part of computer and tech-culture. Kind of a stretch, but hear me out. Text files, perhaps more so than any other part of Internet culture, including BBSs, fully capture the spirit of the Internet and its users. And really, what would the Internet be like if its users didn't exist? Likely a very boring, sterile place. People create culture and, on the Internet, they create culture by creating content. Content packed neatly within a text file. Hence, text files not only perfectly capture the spirit of the Internet, they are the spirit. Beautiful. And, finally, text files work as excellent preservers of the past. Since they are often written from a first-person perspective, they wonderfully capture the author's ideas, notions, and perspectives of the time at which the file is written. But text files also cover a large variety of subjects like hacking, anarchy, politics, sociology, human nature, economics, programming, and more. They can, and often do, reach outside the world of computers and the web. While these files are equally important in the preservation of the past, I still prefer the text files that deal solely with computing. Keep in mind the authors of these text files are de facto historians. They likely had no idea that their writings would, one day, be seen as windows into the past. Nevertheless, text files from decades past expertly chronicle the times in which they were written. And for that reason, if for no other, we should respect them. Sadly, text files as a means of communication and expression have gone by the way side, but they aren't gone completely. Still, text files are on life support. You won't find many current ones. However, you can find files written within the past few years on textfiles.com and, unbelievably enough, they fully capture the spirit of the text files of old. Indeed, I can hardly tell the difference between a text file written in the 80's and a text file written in 2014. Of course the technology has changed, but that radical and rebellious spirit is still alive and well. So there's hope! No matter how big the Internet gets and no matter how much animation, features, and Javascript flood it, text files will always have a place on the Internet. They are as inseparable from the Internet as wet is from water. I encourage anyone reading this to visit textfiles.com and even pen your own text files. Don't worry if you can't write worth a damn; most of the writers of the 80's couldn't either. Yet, they still wrote and textfiles.com has preserved their legacy. So take up the pen...er keyboard and add to this legacy. You've got nothing to lose but a few minutes of your time and you might just enrich this generation and the next with your works.
Biological augmentation is one of the hallmarks of cyberpunk fiction, so I just couldn't let this topic go by untouched. In the United States, there is a small group of people who are interested in biological augmentation. Within this group, there is an even smaller group of people who actually perform such augmentation on themselves. These people are called "body hackers". Put simply, a body hacker is a person who modifies their body in some way, typically by means of surgery, in order to gain an ability they hadn't possessed before. For example, a common body hack involves inserting a magnet under ones skin, typically on a finger tip, in order to "feel" electromagnetic fields. Does that sound a bit "out there"? It is, but we should dismiss body hacking immediately without first considering a few things. Human beings are unique animals. We are unique in that we go to extremes in improving ourselves and our environment. We're always looking for ways to better our lives and live to the fullest. Exercising our bodies and our minds is simply a manifestation of this desire to improve ourselves. And body hacking is just another manifestation of this desire. But why? Is body hacking really going to improve the human body or is it merely a novelty? And at what cost? Okay, what are the costs of body hacking? Pain. Yes, surprisingly enough, physically modifying your body can be very painful. Body hacktivists urge anyone who is going to hack their body first ingest a fair amount of alcohol. This doesn't really inspire confidence, however, it does speak volumes about the commitment these people have to their art. Another cost of body hacking is permanent damage to the body and, possibly even, death. This of course depends on how invasive the hack is and where on the body the hack targets. Additionally, body hacktivists risk serious infection by performing these hacks. But, what are the benefits of body hacking? Now, I know what you're thinking, "How could there possibly be any benefit to body hacking, especially given the costs and risks you so expertly listed above?" The risks and costs can be very high, depending on the hack. However, body hacking isn't without its silver lining. Body hacking, like most underground movements, pushes the envelope. Body hacktivists boldly trudge into uncharted lands, in pursuit of human growth and improvement. Body hacktivists are the likely forerunners of all kinds of future body hacking. It took Thomas Edison 1,000 attempts before he managed to invent a working light-bulb. I view body hacktivists much the same way. They are paving the ground for all kinds of useful body hacks and augmentation. Yes, there are licensed and skilled professionals with far more years under their belt who are doing much the same thing, but the more the merrier, as the expression goes. And the backroom body hackers have an advantage over the licensed professionals. The body hackers aren't restricted by standard and law. Which means more risk to the subject, but it also means more room for experimentation and innovation. But what benefits do body hacks give to the body hacker? Well, I've yet to find a benefit that couldn't have been gotten by other, safer means. Body hacking is still a primitive art form, so there aren't really any hacks that will give any unique benefits. If you want to know about some of the more well-known body hacks, including the one in the image above, see this article by Oliver Wainwright. Now, I'm all for pushing boundaries and taking risks, but there are right ways and wrong ways to push a boundary. And some of these risks seem completely unnecessary given the desired benefit the action is intended achieve. But its not my body on the line. And I can appreciate people who risk their own bodies and lives in the name of innovation. If you are considering hacking your body, give yourself plenty of time to consider the costs and risks involved. Don't just jump into this kind of activity. Body hacking isn't like getting a tattoo on impulse. Even superficial body hacks carry significant risks and consequences. For that reason, I do not endorse body hacking. And just what kind of technological baggage does body hacking bring with it? It would depend largely on the hack, but every hack would carry some kind of baggage. Just another thing to consider before implanting that microphone into your forearm. With that being said, I would like to tip my hat to all of the body hackers out there. It's been said that Cyberpunks are superficial posers who don't have what it takes to commit to the tech-fueled lifestyle. May the body hackers prove the naysayers wrong.
There was once a time in the United States where people, or small organizations, could purchase time-slots on specialty cable-tv channels. In these time slots, people could, generally, produce any kind of content they wanted, provided the content wasn't of a pornographic or illegal nature. The content could be political -- featuring political discussion, debate, and analysis -- artistic -- featuring live artistic creation, design, and tutorials -- or entertainment -- featuring music, comedy, and low-budget action sequences. It could even be all three, if the producer was rather creative. It could be anything the producer wanted, so long as it wasn't pornographic or marginally indecent. These channels lived so long as the producer could keep paying the rent, and the rent was cheap. This meant that the producers had far more creative freedom since they weren't entirely obligated to produce the most cash-grabbing, mainstream, content. If they could pay the rent, month by month, then they could produce whatever they wanted. Again, if it wasn't porn. Eventually, public-access television went the way of the horse-drawn cart. Not because it wasn't popular, well that may have been partly the reason, but due to the legal challenges and competition it faced. Perhaps the primary legal challenge was that producers often aired copyrighted content. This didn't go over well with the copyright holders, who often sued the stations who hosted the content. This led stations to ban and discriminate against certain producers known for including copyrighted content into their own content. Given that time is finite, and even more finite on the limited number of television channels and time slots, public-access television was occupying valuable real estate. In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, cable TV operators and phone companies began to expand into the cable TV market. They saw public-access television as nothing more than a nuisance occupying valuable viewing times. Therefore, they began to lobby congress to pass laws that led to the closing of various stations that hosted this content. Essentially, they legislated the competition out of the market. And this looks like the end of public-access television on the...television. But what about the Internet? It isn't limited by time slots, viewing schedules, or channels, for that matter. Is the Internet the next public-access information distribution network? Yes, and no but in a good way. Youtube was the closest we got to public-access television on the web. But that didn't last forever. There was once a time, say seven years ago, when Youtube didn't have any major stars. Sure, it had viral videos that were as random as a man punching a cow on a Monday morning while wearing an egg-salad sandwich as a hat. But there weren't any famous Youtubers, at least no Youtuber who had complete domination of their respective niche. Today, there are the A-list stars, who account for most of the views on the site and there are the B-list stars who aspire to be A-list stars. The rest of the content creators on Youtube kind of of just get pushed to the side, so whatever content they produce is only discovered by accident. The content still exists, but it isn't as searchable as the A-list content, so it mostly falls through the cracks. As is the case with public-access television, the shows get buried beneath layer after layer of heavily-produced corporate product. However, those shows, while marginalized, still existed. If an analogy may be drawn between that fact and the Internet, the Internet should be the same way. Little islands of spontaneity and obscurity should exist along with the megaliths of the Internet like Youtube and Facebook. If you’ve got a signal, then it should be permitted to be broadcasted. People will either take part or move on to something more their fancy. Youtube allows for little islands of spontaneity, however, as mentioned above, those islands kind of get pushed to the side in favor of the established Youtube personalities. But the content still exists. Same goes for the Internet in general. Huge sites overshadow the small sites, but those small sites still exist. In this respect, the Internet is like public-access television. However, the Internet is better! Those little obscure islands of creativity and content won't be legislated out of existence by companies hungry for the real-estate. There are far fewer physical restrictions in the realm of the Internet, which means a safe voyage for many websites. The Internet is even friendlier to pornographic content and controversy than public-access television ever was. Companies still present a threat to many websites on the Internet by issuing copyright violation claims against certain websites. But that is more the fault of the website in violation than it is the copyright holders. Websites may even face threats from companies that desire a certain domain name, but I have never heard of a business attempting to steal a domain name out from under its owner. If it has happened, it is rare and, evidently, didn't make too many waves. And still, the Internet is far more resilient to these threats. Even SOPA, a huge bill that threatened both illegitimate and legitimate hosts of web content, was kicked to the side after massive public uproar. That is the power of the Internet. And so it is, I want the Internet to remain much the same as it is today: an enormous mixed-bag of anything and everything where anything and everything has a right to exist as it is. Like public-access television, only better!
With all of the heated controversy around Microsoft right now, one would think the company would lay low for a while until things blew over. Evidently, laying-low isn't the Microsoft way. If you're out of the loop, Microsoft has been pulling the wool over its customer's eyes these past eight months. The biggest controversy has been over their telemetry and user diagnostic programs, and whether these programs are sending user data back to Microsoft's HQ. Well, these programs are sending user data and search patterns back to Microsoft! It's been confirmed. It was originally thought that these programs were confined solely to Windows 10, but people have since discovered that these programs were also delivered as updates to Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 many months back. You would think this would be enough for Microsoft, but you couldn't be more wrong. Most Windows users are now oh so familiar with that nagging update notification in the corner of their screen. You know, that notification window that lovingly prods you to install the Windows 10 update. Microsoft, however, is getting impatient with these polite nudges. They have recently announced that the Windows 10 update will now be included among the "recommended updates" in Windows Update. That means Windows 10 will be installed automatically if users have Windows Update set to install recommended updates automatically, which is the default setting. Of course, users will still have to hit the "upgrade" button on the window prompt when it pops-up, but that would be easy enough to do if it just pops-up out of the blue. I can see many careless or technologically-illiterate users accidentally agreeing to the installation. It seems Microsoft is completely willing to exploit a user's desire to keep his PC protected, in order to install an undesired operating system! Gee Microsoft, will you take up clubbing baby seals next? You've already disillusioned your user-base with your "diagnostic services" and unwanted monitoring. When will it be enough? But, as always, there is more. Rumor has it that Microsoft will grow impatient with users and upgrade them automatically, with no prompt at all. To be honest, I wouldn't put this past Microsoft given recent events. But let's keep our heads about us and focus on the facts. Microsoft is now seriously urging users to install an operating system they may not want. Much like a pushy salesmen who just can't take "no" for an answer. I can't remember a time when a company has ever done this to its users. It sets a bad precedent that could get out of hand very quickly. Microsoft has claimed that its recent actions are in the best interest of its user-base, but that sounds very disingenuous to me. However, if Microsoft does believe this, then I can't imagine them having much trouble forcing their user's hand and installing the update right under their user's noses. This is what happens when companies begin to believe they are too big to fall. They start to drink their own Kool-Aid and believe they are invincible. The free market has always found ways to undercut giants when they get too cocky. I believe the same will happen to Microsoft, soon enough.
At this time, most modern cities could be considered Cyberpunk-lite. Those cities are technologically advanced, corporate, and have their fair share of outsiders living on the fringe of society. It’s only a matter of time before more and more cities begin to take the shape of Cyberpunk dystopias. What is to become of the people who knew of a time before Cyberpunkian cities? I don’t know. Adapt or die, as the expression goes. For this post, I’m more interested in the next generation. What does this new digital age mean for digital natives? But before we get into that, just what is a digital native? Digital native is a relatively new term for a relatively new phenomenon. "Digital native" refers to children, or young adults, in our society who display a cunning and adeptness with technology that the adults in our society lack. In short, a digital native is the three-year-old brat who can navigate their iPad the same way a master pianist navigates his piano. Digital natives are the maestros of modern technology. They have been born into the future, the digital age, hence the name "digital natives". They don't know of a world that isn't the digital age. Thus, they are the natives of the digital age. I'm sure you've gotten the point. Let's move on. Now, these digital natives are really the first of their kind. Sure, computers as a mainstream technology have existed since the late 70's and early 80's and there were kids who made computing their lives (keep in mind that these kids were the original hackers), but most had lives outside of computing as well. Those kids could easily separate themselves from their computers since you couldn't fit those bulky machines into your back pocket. However, the children of today, roughly children born after 1995 are surrounded by portable technology that they can't help but take with them everywhere they go. In the 70's/80's, kids could easily make the distinction between the "real world" and their computer world. Today, the lines are far more blurred and it's just about impossible for those kids to get away from technology, even if they wanted to get away, that is. I would like to point out that digital natives aren't particularly smarter than their counterparts one-hundred years ago. Children being...well...children, are incredibly adaptive and absorbent. They learn things at lightning fast speeds, often to the dismay of their parents. Since digital natives were born in the digital age, they naturally adapted to the age and the age's technology. The first generation of digital natives will, one day, come to struggle with technology. Just as their parents did. However, there is something very misleading about the phrase "digital native". Now, it is true that these children are more adept at technology than their parents and grandparents. However, that says more about their parent's lack of knowledge of technology than it does about any ability a digital native may have. If you were to put any one digital native in front of a command prompt, he would likely be as lost as his ninety year old grandfather. These children are more adept than their parents and grandparents, but they are adept only in the relative sense of the word. Smartphone navigation and application manipulation may be a breeze to these natives, but that is really the extent of their knowledge. Of course, there are natives with exceptional knowledge and ability with computers (future hackers, perhaps), but they are in the minority of natives. The majority are only slightly more adept than their parents. But this brings me to another point. These natives are exposed to information like no other generation before them. Does this mean that there will be a greater number of geniuses among them? That's a fascinating question, but I'm afraid it is for another post. The point of this post isn't to bash digital natives or tear them down from their pedestals. Rather, its purpose is to bring our views of digital natives back down to earth. And we should encourage digital natives to keep practicing and refining their skills so that our civilization may progress. One day, we may need these natives to help in the fight against oppressive corporate overlords. One day, perhaps. Decades ago, it was predicted that civilization would need the technologically adept kids of the 70's and 80's. It appears the prediction was correct. I've got a feeling the children of today will play an even bigger role in the future. So three cheers for the digital natives and the future they are sure to usher in their wake.
In Cyberpunk Society and Our Society: Present and Future Drugs, I spoke about the drugs used both in our world and in cyberpunk fiction, and I gave explanations as to why certain drugs are favored over others in certain contexts. I even gave insight on a rather new, freely available and highly potent drug that has only begun to ravage the mind's of the citizenry. (go read the post if you want to discover just what that drug is; I won't spoil it here). But there is another, more recent drug that has gained a substantial cult following. That drug is binaural beats. The concept of binaural beats is easy enough to understand: two different frequencies (usually operating below 1500 hz) with around 40 hz difference between them, when listened to, the two frequencies seem to produce a third tone i.e. the binaural beat. The third tone has the frequency of the difference of the two pure tones. For example, if the two pure tones are, respectively, 500 Hz and 460 Hz, then the third tone (the binaural beat) is perceived to be 40 Hz. Hold on to your harddrives , this is going to get a bit heavy. Though there hasn't been much research into the effects of binaural beats, the speculations of the effects of listening to binaural beats is based upon known facts. It is known that the brain consists of billions of neurons, the synchronized activity of bundles of neurons creates macroscopic oscillations, known commonly as brainwaves. These brainwaves, much like light waves and sound waves, have their own frequencies, amplitudes, and phases. The brainwaves and their frequencies are as follows:
Gamma, 30 to 50 Hz
Beta, 14 to 30 Hz
Alpha, 8 to 14 Hz
Theta, 4 to 8 Hz
Delta, 0.1 to 4 Hz
Moreover, each of these brainwaves corresponds with a certain type of mental state. Gamma waves relate to expanded consciousness and spiritual awareness; Beta waves relate to normal brain function and focused thought; Alpha waves relate to mindfulness and a mixture of calmness and alertness; Theta waves relate to intuition, insight, and dream-like imagery; Delta waves are associated with deep, dreamless, sleep, healing, and regeneration. Now, it is known that brainwaves can be influenced by auditory and visual stimuli. So, the entire premise behind binaural beats as mind-altering substance is to produce a third tone that aligns with the frequency of a brainwave, in order to produce that brainwave in the user and allow the user to gain its respective benefits. Essentially, the user wants to get some kind of "high" by having binaural beats influence his brainwaves. It should be called audio doping™. But is there any evidence that suggests binaural beats can trigger the desired high? Not really or, more accurately, no certain evidence uninfluenced by the placebo effect. But Among the scientific community, it is known that audio and visual stimuli influence brain activity and, therefore, brainwaves. Music has even been shown to boost the immune system, improve mood, facilitate relaxation, and aid in the alleviation of stress, especially music with percussive elements i.e. drums. Still, it's doubtful whether listening to binaural beats can actually synchronize brainwaves to the desired frequency. However, this hasn't stopped people from experimenting with this new-age drug. Some fans of audio doping have reported experiencing other, more interesting, effects as well. Most users have reported experiencing increased concentration, enhanced creativity, and a complete awareness or mindfulness. All of these, however, may be attributed to the reduced stress produced by listening to binaural beats. Some users, however, have reported experiencing hallucinations, both visual and audible. While self-reporting has it's own demons, unreliability and inconsistency to name a couple, these reported effects are interesting and make binaural beats a "hot" commodity among people looking for a cheap and legal high. Years ago, I was an avid user of binaural beats. And I do recall becoming more focused during a listening session. But that might just be my own biased reporting speaking. Unfortunately, I didn't experience any auditory or visual hallucinations. Perhaps I just didn't listen long enough. Whatever the case, I did reap some benefit from listening to binaural beats. I often listen to music while writing, however, I haven't habitually listened to binaural beats in a couple years. Why did I stop? I don't find listening to binaural beats to be particularly pleasant. The pure tones can be somewhat aggravating and grating if I listen to them for longer than five minutes. I need other tones thrown into the mix to take the edge off the pure tones. This, of course, muddies the reports about whether binaural beats are causing the benefits alone. For the purposes of this post, I did revisit binaural beats. And, once again, I did experience the oft-reported benefits. Of course, these weren't pure tones alone, but a mixture of tones with the perceivable pure tones in the background, so the results are muddied. Was I responding to the binaural beat or to the other tones? Or maybe both? It's difficult to tell. But why question it? I could just sit back and enjoy the beat, and I think I will. But there is still more to be said. Heh, I just realized this post is getting bogged down in the technical aspects of binaural beats, which won't do at all. Technical stuff isn't all that interesting, though a good writer can make it painless to read. Unfortunately, I ain't that great of a writer. So onward to the more interesting points. What do binaural beats mean for the future of drug use? If nothing else, its just one more drug on the market, but this drug has a very futuristic spin on it. Its absolute dependency on technology makes it very endearing in the context of an increasingly cyberpunk world. And there's more. I get the impression that binaural beats is really just a sign of things to come in drug culture. In a way, they are the perfect drug. They are easily transmittable, consumable, and, if the reports are to be believed, effective. Most are free to use -- provided you have an Internet connection -- and they are completely legal. I can't see them becoming illegal anytime soon, not when lawmakers are so focused on placing restrictions on e-cigarettes and knock-off marijuana. Binaural beats as mind-altering substance are flying completely under the political and media radar. Even in the limitless sea of the Internet, articles about them are a rarity. Will there be more drugs that abuse the human senses in order to render the desired high? Human nature says "Yes". Binaural beats have set an interesting and entirely necessary precedent. All that's left to be done is for people to discover the next big digital drug. Given that binaural beats is a "no-strings-attached" drug, it makes sense that it should become rather popular and gain a cult following. I suspect we'll hear more about this drug in the future. Hopefully we'll also see some new scientific studies about it too. I hope I'm not subjecting myself to more pseudoscience. It wouldn't be the first time, though. You can never have too much pseudoscience in your life.
