I had a fairly typical day at the office today, doing the usual stuff, and trying to crack a new idea that’s been brewing in my head for the last week or so. By the late afternoon though, I started to get really bored and distracted, and found it hard to concentrate on work. Tried flicking open some Facebook and forums, but those weren’t doing it for me either. Nothing unusual, right? Happens to everybody.

Knock-off time. As I started walking to my car, the ideas started flooding into my brain, and I thought to myself “why does this always happen?” Maybe it’s happened to you too: your best ideas have come to you while driving, in the shower, walking the dog… but never behind your desk. My take on this is that we’re spatial beings who live in a three-dimensional world. Our brains and bodies work best in 3D space, and it takes a surprising amount of effort to confine it to a flat surface. Therefore when I finally made a break from my work (and not just a temporary respite) my mind was freed from its boxy jail.

I dub this condition spatial dissonance – the encroachment of the flat virtual world into the real world. The problem is, my career and hobbies are all currently critically dependent on interfacing with a screen, and while I can quite easily take up new hobbies that don’t involve monitors or TVs, I’m at much less liberty to make similar changes at work.

I guess that’s why found this TED talk video so interesting. In it, John Underkoffler makes the point that User Interface design has lagged significantly behind increases in speed and capacity, and gives a live demonstration of a real-world implementation of the spatial interface technology that he helped to design for the movie Minority Report.

I can’t wait.

—

Here’s the video:

The Internet has devalued information. Take the Encyclopaedia Britannica for instance – once the epitome of human knowledge, now relegated to bit-player by the likes of Wikipedia. Here’s the interesting thing about Wikipedia: it is nothing more than a repository of information sourced from brains like yours and mine, written down (or typed out, as it were). Everybody knows something. It might be common knowledge such as “the sky is blue” or it might be highly specialised knowledge, but if it’s in your head it costs you nothing to access. Taking this idea further, maybe your mum works for Centrelink (hi mum!), you have a friend who is a doctor, or you attend church and know the pastor. Therefore when you have a question about government benefits, health, or religious views, you can simply ask those people and again, it costs you nothing to get that information (other than maybe time, both yours and theirs). Now imagine that you’re friends with the whole world – and you’ve got Wikipedia.

But back to news. News is one of those things where timing is everything. Also, you don’t just want to hear one side of the story – in order to make up your own mind you need to get a balanced view of the topic. Hence – and this is just a partially formed opinion – the value that Journalism adds to the ecology described above, and the areas that it should focus on, are announcing and aggregating.

• If a happening is of interest, and pertinent to you and your social circle, you’ll eventually hear about it through the grapevine. An announcement means not only that you know about it as soon as possible, but that it is as close to first-hand as possible so that it doesn’t suffer from the Chinese Whispers effect.
• For complex issues, particularly in the area of politics, people will inevitably take sides and therefore be biased. Journalism, therefore, is a unique profession in that its workers are paid to thoroughly investigate both sides of an issue and report on it in a fair and unbiased manner. (Whether that happens in reality and how successful they are is a whole other kettle of fish.)

If media outlets were successful in delivering that, I’d be happy to pay for it. Sadly most news sources today are soundly beaten by a bunch of nerds on the Internet with blogs funded through advertising. Many of these are even quite reputable now, like Ars Technica – one of my regular haunts – which was bought by Condé Nast Publications a couple of years ago.

There’s talk of a resurgence of pay-for news as publishers look to the Apple iPad as their saviour, stitching up content deals and offering new interactive media experiences. But it’s foolish hope, since any amateur with a bit of design skill can offer a compelling interface – just look at the plethora of rags-to-riches stories brought on by the iPhone. If there’s any hope of salvation for the news industry, it’s going come from providing something greater than simply communicating information, which the Internet is already helping more and more people to do each day.

There is a flood of information out there, and part of our lives involves wading through and picking out the bits that are relevant to us. We’ve essentially reverted back to a hunter/gatherer species, except with abstract needs such as information and entertainment instead of the basic needs of food and shelter.

The Internet is one such morass of information, and Google purportedly came along to help us sift through it to find what we want. Hooray! we think, under the delusion that this would slowly push back the ever-increasing encroachment of advertising into our lives. Oh how wrong we were… Google is now probably the world’s largest advertising company. It’s entire revenue model is based on the selling of ads, and the total volume of ads that we now see on a daily basis has increased, not decreased.

Will we ever arrive at the stage where we can be rid of advertising? Not if Google has anything to do with it. Their overarching mission is to dominate platforms where they can flog a product, or if that’s not possible, use it to increase the leverage of their other products that can (usually Search). The company  rarely innovates or invents, and simply refines and improves what already exists: Yahoo, Altavista and many other search engines existed before Google, Cloud-based applications were available long before Google Apps, and surely nobody is deluded enough to think that mobile telephones didn’t exist before the Nexus One (iPhone, anyone?)

That’s not to say what they do is without merit, but look at their business strategy: identify a technological category which could be monetised by advertising, assimilate it into the Google family, crush the opposition, and move on. It might seem benevolent for them to offer something that previously cost money for free, but in doing so they’re making the true costs opaque. Users of Google AdWords simply trust that the cost of bidding on a keyword is driven by “market forces” but how do we know that Google isn’t taking a bigger cut than they deserve?

Even more scary is their recent foray into the political realm, provoking China over the issue of censorship. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on in regards to the Great Firewall, Google’s actions should be troubling: they are leveraging moral issues for financial gain, turning their corporate mantra of “don’t be evil” into a mission statement.

With its superpowers, will Google don a metaphoric cape and start fighting against what it perceives to be “evil” – i.e. countries, religions and political systems that stand in the way of its financial gain?

This recent weekend though, I sat in front of the TV for a lot longer than I can remember doing for ages, watching both the men’s and women’s finals of the Australian Open. The match between Serena Williams and Justine Henin, despite being Henin’s big comeback after having a child, was largely uninspiring. Andy Murray however, put up a great fight in the 3rd set against Roger Federer, making for some truly riveting moments. While still not back to level of the glory days of Edberg, Agassi, et al, men’s tennis hasn’t been this good for a long time – thank God that the era of the ridiculous serving machines and baseline bashers is over (women’s tennis is still there though, no thanks to the Williams sisters).

Getting to the point, I experienced an epiphany while watching a sport that I used to enjoy. I found myself getting bored (Jenny quit watching as soon as Federer started winning). My mind started wandering during the longer rallies, and I was itching to go Google something in between every point (15-0: the recipe for green onion pancakes! 30-0: did anybody respond to my Facebook status? 30-15: am I missing out on a deal at OzBargain? etc.)

Non-existent attention span aside, my point is that the Internet has ruined me for the mundane. A daily dose of awesome, served up fresh to my browser via RSS at my every beck and call, has skewed my sense of the ordinary towards the extremes of FTW and Epic Fail. Think about it the next time you Twitter or update your Facebook status: are you self-censoring by only posting things that meet some kind of criteria of what you feel is worth your friends’ time? Against this tide of vanity, how can you not start to feel that your own life is inadequate?

I realised that this affects my writing too. I couldn’t marr my blog with any old crazy thought that graced my mind – each post has to inspire, demonstrate my clearly superior intellect, and impart knowledge that transcends mortal understanding. Likewise my poetry was for naught if it didn’t tear at the very foundations of your soul… you get the idea.

I resolve in 2010 to be more mediocre. Next time you see a boring blog post or status from me, you’ll know that I’m doing it for you.

—-

btw, I still haven’t found a good recipe for Green Onion Pancakes yet. Do share…

I explained in a previous post that one of the frustrations is knowing exactly what the scope of this blog should be. Am I “lifestreaming”? Am I sharing some quirky aspect of myself, or am I trying to find fame and fortune through building up a large group of followers? In the end, I think it’s probably none of the above. I’m just writing because my brain is overflowing with all kinds of information, and blogging is the best medium to receive it. So much so that I’m now actively maintaining 3 blogs: this, THRIFTerrific and the recently launched GeekReads. I’m cranking out at least a-post-a-week and still have enough topics in the backlog to last me a good part of the rest of the year.

Granted, we’ll see what happens after I’ve worked through that backlog (although of course new ideas constantly come up, just not at the same rate as when the concept was new and minty fresh). But I’m still pleasantly surprised at how much easier it is to write when the themes are narrow and focused.

On a separate but related note, I’m very excited about some of the revelations that I’ve received in regards to the Social Media space, and I have a few exciting projects lined up which I hope to have the pleasure of announcing here one day, although much depends on the other project collaborators.

Another personal bugbear is how many writers and directors seem to think that the computers of the (near) future will be controlled by talking to them. It probably taps into a basic human desire; voice recognition is a technology that mimics how we communicate with each other, i.e. using spoken language, so that’s what we want our computers to do. In spite of that, I believe speech-control will be a niche at best and not the next major epoch of human-computer interaction, and that the only viable advancement in human-computer interface is mind-control.

Why? Imagine a classroom full of students chatting to their computers. It’s bad enough that in a typical lecture theatre today, the scritch-scratching of pens, and more recently the tap-tapping of keyboards, is a constant source of annoyance. If we had to take notes verbally, the lecturer or teacher would never be able to get a word in. Or imagine your office if your colleagues (especially that man or woman with the Really Annoying Voice) use voice dictation to compose e-mails. It’d be like working in a call centre in Bangalore – with just as little privacy. The majority of ways in which we use computers today are not socially compatible with voice control – it’s that simple.

But before we get to mind-control, what other types of human-computer interface can we consider?

• Handwriting-recognition: handwriting is an archaic method of transcribing thoughts and ideas onto a physical medium. Evidentially, most people I know can type faster than they can write – nobody I know could crank out a lazy 60 words-per-minute using a pen and paper, let alone the crazy speeds that some of the technology-savvy are capable of (I clock in variously at somewhere between 80-90wpm). With the ubiquity of computers, there is no question that handwriting-recognition is more of a bridge from the past to the present, than a viable technology for the future.
• Gesture-recognition tools currently available on the market can detect points in 2D space, e.g. drawing symbols with your mouse like in the Opera Web browser, or with your fingers like multi-touch on the iPhone. Once the technology evolves, it will allow us to make symbols with either our hands or other input devices in 3D space, which the computer can then interpret, like deaf-sign language. But I think this is an ergonomically bankrupt idea because it requires people to learn a new meta-language. I have enough “Learn how to speak French/Japanese/Chinese” books lying around the house to support my idea that companies will have a difficult time convincing people to learn a new language to talk to computers, when I haven’t made any inroads to learning ones that allow me to communicate with my fellow man.
• Today’s concept of virtual reality conjures up images of people in full-body suits full of sensors. It’s hilarious to think that you affect movement in a virtual world by replicating real-world movements – picture a room full of people wearing goggles bumping into each other, as well as the walls, and you’ll see how ludicrous this idea is. Lawnmower Man and The Matrix both got it right. Tron – if I remember correctly – did not.

If you think that controlling technology with your mind is far-fetched, then consider this: the science is already quite far along, and there are already applications such as allowing disabled people to control prosthetic limbs.

The potential for using technology to overcome our physical limitations is huge – imagine if the computer can take that tune you dreamed up and turn that into a score without having to know the first thing about musical notation. We will be able to do business at the speed of thought (credit for that phrase goes to Bill Gates). Your next Wii or PlayStation might not even need controllers – you play purely through the power of your mind!

Now that’s something to think about.

• Today, I turned the RSS feed of this blog over to Feedburner, which Google acquired in 2007. The move was entirely narcissistic – after all, what possible need do I have for knowing the number of people that subscribe to my blog?
• To the feed, I attached Google AdSense, to display an ad every now and then, in the vain hope that my constantly updated, and hugely successful blog will generate some income. If you’re reading this on the Web, you’ll see that my blog already shows ads in the right column, but it hasn’t generated so much as a single cent for me since I first signed on :-)
• Metrics reporting is provided by Google Analytics from which I can observe the actions of my visitors, like a kid with an ant farm. Again, just navel gazing, but it is interesting learning that my blog was a GoogleWhack (a search that only returns a single result) for somebody’s search on a certain Eamon song lyric…
• This blog itself is created in Blogger which was bought out by Google in 2003.
• I use my own domain name for e-mail, which is hosted by Gmail (now part of Google Apps). I purchased the domain name through GoDaddy, which isn’t a Google company (yet?) by is still in keeping with the “G” theme.
• Jenny and I use Google Calendar to keep track of our appointments (also part of Google Apps).
• We navigated our way around Canberra last weekend using Google Maps.
• Recently, I’ve helped my father-in-law to promote his Guitar Shop using Google AdWords.
• And of course, who doesn’t use Google Search?

I’m sure there are others. The list above is larger than I had originally anticipated – as I was writing I kept thinking of more and more services. It’s sad, but there’s really no denying that Google plays a significant role in my life!

Dear Mr Burlew,

I am a regular follower and fan of your Web comic The Order of the Stick. Although I don’t have a Role Playing Game background, I have been exposed to just enough of it to understand most of the humour relating to desktop gaming, and find the comic very funny and charming overall.

As a Christmas present, my wife bought me On The Origin of PCs, and it is concerning this that I wanted to write to you. Specifically, I noticed that after the first introduction to the book by the character Redcloak, you included “second introduction” as yourself, explaining some of the background behind this book.

While it is a funny piece overall, it was towards the end when I became a little bit sad that the behaviour of some “fans” must have made it necessary for you to explain why you did or didn’t include certain things in the book. In another time and age, an artist might have had to defend his work, but to explain it so plainly would have been unheard of – the interpretation is as significant a part of the piece as the piece itself. Nick Usborne wrote in his book Net Words: Creating High-Impact Online Copy along the lines that the Internet has enabled the consumer to become an active participant for the first time in history, and maybe some simply cannot resist the temptation to make their own personal interpretations heard, and to force it onto others (including the artist) hoping to influence future outcomes for their own personal gratification.

Therefore, I admire you for your choice in continuing to use the Internet as your preferred medium for OotS; salute your commitment to your art in spite of whatever setbacks you may face with your health, demanding fans, Intellectual Property theft and other issues unique to the Internet; and thank you for your integrity in creating the comic purely as a product of your own wonderful imagination.

Sincerely,
Caesar Wong

However, the Geek Lust™ does not give up so easily. Notebooks weren’t designed to be upgradeable, and as the march of technological progress continued, I found myself with a less and less capable machine. Great games were passing me by! Then, a few years down the track, let’s just say I was very pleased to find myself in possession of a brand new top-of-the-range model (long story). But the pleasure was hollow, since with the pinnacle of anything, there is no way up, only down. Never have I felt this more accutely than when I finally decided to throw in my love of portable computing for the upgradeability of a desktop computer.

At this stage of my life, with mortgages, babies and other costs looming, one of the consolations I gave myself for splurging on a brand new desktop was that I should be able to recoup a decent amount from the sale of my notebook, which would have cost over $5,000 when I first got it (if I had to pay full price for it). However when I checked around on eBay, the prices being offered were no more than a thousand or so. That’s four-bloody-thousand dollars worth of depreciation in around 12 months! That is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, yeah technology, like cars, is a commodity that depreciates very fast, but surely not four-grand-in-a-year fast?!

Well, I guess it’s a great buyer’s market right now. My new desktop (a Dell Inspiron 530 with a 24″ widescreen monitor) was cheaper than I could have ever imagined for a machine of that calibre, and now I have the luxury of upgrading incrementally. Oh, and having a huge screen is nice, very nice…