Issue 40: Spotlight on Technology
By Dr. Roger Korby

Future Computers

The other day at work some colleagues and I got into a rather enjoyable conversation about Moore’s Law, (I know, you’re thinking about the countless number of times this has happened to you.) The Moore from “Moore’s Law” is Gordan Moore, one of the co-founders of Intel. In 1965 he observed that the number of transistors, (tiny electronic on/off switches), that could inexpensively be placed on an integrated circuit doubles every year. This has held true for the last 40 years but we may be approaching the physical limits of what is possible with our current technology.

Scientists are working on technology that may power the computers of the future. These are all currently at very early stages in their research and if you were to see one of these future “computers” it would probably just look like some random lab equipment strung out across a laboratory work bench.

Quantum computers would operate based on certain qualities of quantum mechanical phenomena. In a transitor-based computer, information is stored in a two-state bit, (0 or 1), but in a quantum computer, information is stored in a qubit, (quantum bit) which can be a 0 or a 1 or any value in between. It’s complicated but, in essence, a quantum computer could do a lot of calculations simultaneously. Quantum computing is still mostly theory but there has been some experimental success at computing by manipulating the spins of a molecule’s nuclei or using laser and filters to create and manipulate those weird quantum mechanical phenomena mention above.

Another approach is DNA computing. This approach uses enzymes and DNA molecules to do many calculations at once. A few highly specialized DNA computers have been built that were able to do certain calculations thousands of times faster than traditional computers.

Yet another computer technology that is being researched is the optical computer. A computer that operated by manipulating light could be much faster than one that depended on the movement of the much slower electron.

One question I asked my co-workers in our conversation was, do we really need faster computers? What if what we really need is better software? Niklaus Wirth, (a computer scientist that created several programming languages), made the following observation in 1995: “Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.” This has come to be known as “Wirth’s Law” and I think it pretty much sums up the shape of computers today. Building efficient software is hard and expensive and programmers use all kinds of tricks and tools that take care of the harder parts of the work for them. This abstraction, or moving further away from the language the hardware speaks, (ones and zeros), makes the software run slower. So far, the approach that most software companies have taken is, “well, it takes too long to write efficient software and there’s no need to anyway, because next year’s hardware will run it twice as fast anyway.” This assumption may not be true for much longer and I hope that we soon see a shift in software where programmers (or their purse-strings holders who decide how long they spend on projects) start focusing on building better, faster running software.

One positive change I see coming is Apple’s next month release of OS X 10.5 Leopard. This new operation system includes changes that help developers make use of the multiple-core 64-bit CPUs that every new Apple computer ships with. Leopard has several other advantages over Mircosoft’s new OS, Vista in that OS X 10.5 will run all the old 32-bit applications and drivers seamlessly and there is only one version of the operating system, (as opposed to Vista where if you choose to install the 64-bit version, none of your 32-bit drivers will work.)

Issue 39: Spotlight on Technology
By Amdnarg Toh

Textiquette - 2B or Not To Be?

Ok. Am I the only thirty-something on the planet who doesn’t understand the current fad of text messaging? Let’s see… If you have a cell phone, a device capable of carrying your voice over long distances, why would you send me some crappy abbreviated, misspelled, terse message that I might not understand, when you could just as easily call me? Remember: it takes less effort to place an actual voice call than it does to send me a text message.

My litany of texting evils:

1. Requires the use of your hands. With the amount of cell phone zombie drivers on the road, I wonder how long it will be before we see text related accidents? Unless humans grow a third arm, and are suddenly able to use some of that 90% unused brain capacity, I’m VERY worried about drivers trying to text while driving.
2. Simple courtesy. In real conversations, meetings, and any other sort of interactive conversation, it’s generally considered to be rude to interrupt. However, it seems that texting during meetings, conversations, etc. has somehow become acceptable. I can see how this might be ok for teenagers, but for adult professionals? Choose who you’re going to communicate with please, and let me know when you can talk to me without distraction. Texting during meetings is as inappropriate as passing notes while the professor is lecturing.
3. Decline in writing skills. When texting, (laden with its emoticons and abbreviations), becomes a primary mode of communication, normal writing skills go on the decline. Perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing, and the vernacular will change to suit a more terse writing style. But I doubt it. We’ll just have to retrain folks to actually spell and write out whole words when they move into the non-texting world.

However, one important aspect of texting is very beneficial. It’s an asynchronous mode of communications. Just like email, texting makes “unconnected” communications possible. In fact, texting is really just a poor man’s Blackberry, the current trendy email thingy for technophiles. Whether or not the Blackberry has made folks more productive remains to be seen, but it most certainly makes it easier to connect with folks. It does make some sense, then, that if I have a low priority message to send, that I send it, and just wait for a response to come later. This is the reason, I believe, why it’s so prominent a habit for folks to text during other modes of communication. It doesn’t require full allocation of the time slot for me to do a “back and forth” quick message.

I’m sure a lot of my griping is just from my being an old fogey. I hardly thought I’d be such a crotchety old guy at the ripe age of 36, but I guess it’s my lot in life. I’ll probably just have to give in and buy the powder blue jump suit, dark socks, and Velcro tennis shoes. If you see me wandering down the road, mumbling to someone who isn’t really there, I’m probably just talking to make sure I still remember how.

And please – if you want to talk to me, just call me. I promise not to drone on and on or make small talk just because…

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some googling to do. I heard there was a way to flip the bird via an emoticon… Sheer genius!!!

Issue 36: Spotlight on Technology
By Amdnarg Toh

Wifi the Wireless Poodle

I’m usually not the sort to make predictions or prognostications. I’ve neither the acumen nor the inclination to try to figure out any sort of “grand plan”, at least as far as technology is concerned. However, I’ve been known to comment on the obvious trend now and again. One such trend that I see is one in which some level of connectivity to the Internet is expected, no matter where one is geographically.

It’s a rare occasion that I’m left without connectivity of some sort. I’m one of those types that checks email religiously, even while on vacation. I’ve been known to sit outside the local library with my laptop, searching for the best position to sit so I can get a signal from their publicly available wireless internet connection. I’ve come to expect that I’ll have connectivity anywhere, at any time. In fact, I get a bit stressed when I know I’ll not be “connected”.

For this discussion, we will consider two types of network communications: wired, meaning you must be physically near enough to the access point to connect some sort of cable between it and your computing device, and wireless, meaning no wire is required, just a reasonable physical proximity to the access point, which varies depending on the location of the access point, speed of the connection, etc. Since ubiquitous by definition would preclude any sort of “wired” , the balance of this monologue will address the wireless type of connectivity. First, let’s go over the most common forms of wireless:

CDPD (Cellular Data Packet Delivery). An older data network used over cellular networks. Mostly defunct now, due to slow speeds, cost, and eventual availability of newer, faster, cheaper alternatives.

GPRS (General Packet Radio Service). Data specification for current cellular networks (GSM). This is the data network that currently provides data service (internet/web/etc) for US cellular phone users.

802.11 (WiFi). This is a set of standards developed by the IEEE, (nerdy types), that enable a standard way of doing wireless communications. This is the typical wireless connection that is available at public hot spots such as at coffee shops, restaurants, and airports. 802.11b, introduced in 1999, provides up to 11Mpbs data rate, and a range of 35 meters indoors. 802.11g, released in 2003, ups the data rate to 54Mbps, at the same range. 802.11n, due to be out in 2009, will extend both the data rate and the distance, (75Mbps and 70 meters respectively.)

Both CDPD and GPRS are true mobile services, meaning that they have increased range and can be used while actually in motion. They also have a significant installed base of access points, (towers), that make this a very viable candidate for ubiquitous access. Unfortunately there isn’t any real way for the public to do this grassroots style, since private companies own the network.

Wifi is the most viable candidate for ubiquitous stationary wireless access. With new standards coming up, range can be increased, and these access points can be installed cheaply and in a fairly widespread area. Once enough hotspots are active, one could conceivably move from spot to spot within the coverage range, and connect right up.

So if I’m waxing prophetic, I’d wager a good deal of my kids’ college fund on the fact that within five years, wireless connectivity will become so widespread that it will be the norm, not the exception. Here are my reasons for being so sure of this:

Cellular phones are cheap and feature rich. If you consider that the two most used applications on cell phones now are voice and chat, you will find an interesting parallel with early uses of computers for multiuser functions.
Most laptop computers today come with built in WiFi cards. Price and demand have made this happen.
Businesses already provide free Wifi as a “perk” of doing business with them. I can sit at any Starbucks, Panera Bread, or McDonalds and check email, look for directions, or buy shoes on eBay.
Remember how bad cell phone coverage used to be? Dead spots? We’ve become so used to good mobile phone service that dead spots are the exception.

These alone are not direct proof that what I predict is actually happening, but they’re sure darned good indicators. Customer demand in a consumer based economy is a powerful force. All you really have to do is convince the majority that they can’t live without something, and you’ve won. Mobile devices, and the networks that support them will continue to evolve. This means more capable mobile computers, (read small, light, and powerful), and better wireless networks, (read cheap and fast.) Combine the two and you have the technical capability, and are just left with the development of the wireless network.

Mobile service providers AT&T, Alltel, etc. have already stepped up to the plate to provide high bandwidth Internet service. What needs to happen now is an increase in bandwidth and decrease in cost. As users are added, this will happen as a normal matter of course. Will cost ever be so low it’s virtually free? Maybe.

Initiatives to provide a publicly available, free WiFi network are in progress. The Municipal Wifi is one such example. Many cities want to use WiFi to provide public access for police, fire, ambulance, and utility use, and are making a portion of their networks available to the public for free. There are several grassroots organizations that provide free wireless routers to the public as long as they will allow their “hotspot” to remain open to the public, and will allow the organization to provide their location on a map of available hotspots. All that’s left is time, money, and inclination before WiFi coverage is as wide spread as cellular phone coverage. In fact, some mobile phone providers are trying to wrap their money grubbin’ hands around the WiFi market, and are providing widespread WiFi access for a fee. So when my Internet Service Provider, (AT&T), offered me a roaming WiFi subscription for $1.99 a month, I giggled with glee. I can now connect at most any airport, McDonalds, and many other public hot spots that aren’t free for the average Joe, but are now included in my basic service.

Most likely, the end solution will be some amalgam of both types of services. There are already phones on the market with WiFi built in, that take advantage of WiFi access when it’s available, which wouldn’t cost the user, and will use GPRS when WiFi isn’t available, which costs. Of course, for the open source hippie wanna-be in me, I’d like for WiFi to win the day, since it’s public and free…

Issue 35: Spotlight on Technology
By Amdnarg Toh

Confessions of a Self-Admitted Luddite

Fill in the blank:

Red, white, and ______.

Beans and _______.

Bacon, lettuce, and _______.

Some combinations make sense. I know of a few that don’t. Cream cheese, mayonnaise, and olive sandwiches just don’t make sense. Pickles and ice cream don’t make sense. A computer nerd that doesn’t have a BlackBerry, Wii, and a DVR doesn’t make sense. So paint me plaid and call me weird – I’m the one.

I confess that I’m somewhat of a Luddite. I drive a car that’s almost as old as me. I don’t play games on my PC. My favorite video game,(Super Contra), is on the Super Nintendo I bought at a garage sale 5 years ago. Most of my computer equipment is second hand – I had never bought a new computer until last year. My home theater system is a 27” TV hooked up to a stereo I received last year via a local FreeCycle group. I didn’t have an MP3 player until a couple of months ago and no, it’s not an iPod. My cell phone is one without an MP3 player, camera, PDA, and all of those other useless gadgets. I’ve even set its ringtone to sound like an old rotary phone. I don’t have cable TV, haven’t ever had it on a permanent basis. (I used free trial subscriptions for a few months in college.) I don’t record any shows on my non-existent DVR. I don’t even record stuff on my VCR, (yes, it’s VHS, and not BETA-I’m not that much of a technophobe.)

Part of the reason for most of my lack of gadgets is that I’m cheap. But there’s also something else. Most of the technological junk that some folks litter their lives with is needlessly complicated. Sure, it’s great to be able to “pause” live TV so you can answer the phone, or the door, or execute a bio-break. But is it worth the cost in dollars and the added layer of complexity in my life just to have something that’s functionally of little use? Sure, I like some PC games, but do I want to spend more money keeping my PC capable of running the most recent games than I do on my car payment?

I’m an old-school computer geek. I don’t really like either Windows or Mac. Give me a Linux workstation and I’m in heaven. There’s something about being able to rewrite the operating system myself that is empowering. I like to code my HTML by hand. When someone points out some pretty little nerd-knob or widget on a web page, I know the exact commands required to code it, not just a program that I can use to design it that does the coding for me.

I agree with my hot rod car buddies who look with a bit of disdain at the younger generation of import-driving, big-ass-trunk-wing-toting, crappy-ground-effects-kit- installing car folks, who we affectionately call “tuners.” Whose idea of hot rodding a car is installing a fresh air intake and a fart pipe muffler, and installing purple neon lights on the underside of their cars. I’ve replaced and/or repaired almost every major system in my car- a 1974 Dodge Dart “Swinger.” That’s Swingerrrrr. Yeah baby!!! I know why it smells the way it does, why it shakes at a certain RPM, etc.

Isaac Asimov wrote in the Foundation series about the decline of a galactic society. One of the harbingers of doom for this empire was that there were signs of the decay of technology. Technology had advanced sufficiently that the average person knew zip about how it worked, and even the folks who managed the technology didn’t know any more about it, other than how to push buttons and twist levers. Innovation had crawled to a standstill, and the engineering skills to develop new technology and really understand how the technology worked had long been lost. Thus most of the technology was in disrepair and failing In essence, the functions that the technology provided were also failing. Eventually, the galactic empire fell, and lapsed into a period of barbarism. Those few that did understand technology were considered to be wizards, and eventually, a very controlled infrastructure of priests and practicians was established to help manage the technology.

I see something similar in the technology field today. There are a lot of folks who “repair” and even construct computers without knowing a lot about how the components really work. There are folks who write programs with some fairly complicated tools that don’t really even have to write any code at all. There are folks who manage computer networks that couldn’t spell TCPIP, much less know how it works. We’re becoming a workforce of technicians, those who operate equipment and technology, rather than a society of engineers, those who design and develop it. Why is this happening? There are a number of contributing factors, which time and space prevent me from going into. But my personal reasons for not embracing every shiny, new, and sparkly gadget that comes into existence, is mostly that I don’t like too many layers of abstraction between me and the actual functioning of the technology. With each added layer of technology between me and the task at hand, whether it’s producing music for my ears to hear, producing kinetic energy from the controlled explosions that drive pistons, gears, and wheels, an additional layer of complexity and cost is introduced, usually at little benefit to me, the end user. And little by little, my ability to understand the system as a whole is diminished.

Most of the technology I mentioned above does really very little to add productivity and/or enjoyment to my life. For example, my requirements for television are basically news, and Heroes. I don’t need cable for that. Sure, it’d be neat to be able to watch all of those old Ren and Stimpy episodes, but do I really need five different 24-7 news channels? It’d be great to be able to record those shows I miss – except for that I only have one I really am interested in enough to give attention to, and I devote time to watching it, and if I simply can’t see it when it’s aired, I watch it online the next day.

Most of my technology is based on some real objective. I have a PC at home to do email, and basic office related tasks. I have an MP3 player that I use while mowing the lawn, working out, and on trips. Other than that, it stays in the drawer.

I’m a nerd’s nerd. Nerdy even to nerds, because I’m not nerdy enough… Sigh…

Issue 33: Spotlight on Technology
By Dr. Roger Korby

Favorite Technologies and Why I’m Done Letting Them Control My Life

This article was going to be about my favorite technological doodads and the way that they have changed my life. This list would have included things like my iPod, DVR, Mac Mini, cell phone and Pikepass. I sat down to write it and pretty much immediately realized that, because of something I’d read recently, I honestly couldn’t say that I liked the way that I’ve let certain pieces of technology change my life.

I recently finished reading Tim Ferriss’s The Four Hour Work Week and to quickly sum it up, in 2002 Ferriss was a twenty-something entrepreneur in Silicon Valley working 80 hour weeks. He realized that he was working for work’s sake and that he could cut down his work schedule massively by automating as much as possible and empowering the people that work for him to make decisions without his acting as a bottleneck. He lays out how he accomplished this in thorough, but not boring, detail and describes how he now spends nearly all his time doing the things he really wants to do- like break-dance in Taiwan, race motorcycles in Europe and scuba dive in Panama. It’s a really incredible read and while on the surface it may seem like one of those cheesy “get rich quick” infomercials you see on very early-morning television, it’s not. You will not regret reading this book.

While I usually only have to work 40-hour weeks at my job, after reading Ferriss’s book I realized that over the last few years I’ve picked up the habit of forcing myself to experience certain forms of entertainment whether I really wanted to or not. I was “working” close to an extra 50 or 60 hours a week trying to keep up with all the hours of entertainment my technology was diligently serving up for me to enjoy.

On any given day, I get home from work and am faced with the following:

• Google Reader has over a thousand posts for me to read
• My DVR has about 53 hours of TV for me to watch, (not to mention hundreds of channels of live TV)
• I’ve got to choose another 27 downloads from eMusic tonight or I lose them, (usually this means “discovering” new bands… no simple or quick task)
• I’ve got several Wii games I’ve barely scratched the surface on (including the 70+ hour Zelda:Twilight Princess)

About a year ago I nearly had an entertainment-overload-induced break down. I was trying to keep up with most of the things listed above and was subscribed to both Netflix and Yahoo Music Unlimited. I was paying a monthly fee for the latter services and felt a serious obligation to enjoy them to their fullest, damnit! With YMU, I had potentially millions of songs to listen to, (and of a more time-consuming nature, convert to MP3s), and a growing queue of movies on Netflix. It was too much “fun” stuff to do and not enough time and I got to where the sight of a stack of unwatched DVDs on my TV just made me uncomfortable. I trimmed off Netflix and YMU and instantly felt better and more in control.

However, since then I’ve let my technology creep back into control of my free time. What am I going to do about it? Despite my previous article raving about RSS Feed Readers, it turns out keeping up with eighty feeds for a long term is just not that fun. I recently unsubscribed to some of the worst time-consumers, (digg.com, I’m looking at you), and added Scoble’s shared items. (Robert Scoble is a tech-guy that, among other things, spends hours each day filtering the good stuff out of thousands of new blog and tech site posts.) As for my DVR I’ll choose just a few shows for it to record, probably things like Heroes, Mythbusters and The Wonder Years, (thanks a lot for this new addiction, Sydney Brown!) and watch them in marathon sittings. eMusic is the one thing I’m not going to change. I’ve found some great music there and I can do other stuff while listening to it. I’ve actually considered selling my Wii but I probably won’t because some next-generation games for it will probably be pretty incredible.

I realize that it’s pretty lame to complain about not having enough time to keep up with entertaining myself, so I’m proposing an experiment to help me get past these artificial-stress inducing, entertainment-overload hang-ups.

For the next month, I’ll only let myself turn on my computer or television one night a week, including weekends! Stay tuned for a follow up report in a future issue of Nerd City.

The thought of going “technology-free” like this actually has me nervous and I feel like I should probably think this through a bit more thoroughly before I just jump off the deep end, but, what the heck, I’ll give it a try.

I’ve got a whole shelf of books I haven’t read, friends I can hang out with and (when it’s not raining), some great weather to get out in.