One of the most evocative in the process search for a comprehensive system of symbolic representation and interpretation is the musical notation. The need for a graphical language that was able to represent musical abstraction lead to the creation of the current musical staff. View musical notation. Brief history.
About Relativity and the supreme interface Traffic
The interface has always been defined by law materializing objectively interpret the world, beyond the subjectivity of the viewer, to suggest a formula that enables the reading of the world regardless of the conditions in which the world is perceived. The theory of relativity that will clearly articulated:
"By studying the heavens we are deprived of all senses except sight. We can not touch the sun, or travel to it. [...] However, astronomers have consistently applied their geometry and physics who believed valid for the surface of the earth and based on touch and on the road. " Therefore, the absolute motion would be a fiction, and thus born the calculation.
"As advanced physics is clearer than the view, as a source of basic knowledge on the subject, is less misleading than the touch."
"Physics aims to inform about what occurs in the physical world, not just on private perceptions of each of the observers. Physics therefore has an interest in those aspects of a physical process presents to all observers. Such issues can only be regarded as belonging to the same physical fact. This requires that the "laws" of phenomena have to be the same, whether they are described as they appear to an observer or in another court. The only principle is the reason generator whole theory of relativity ".
" Each one is equally justified and errs if it gives an objective validity to subjective measures. This distance in space between two events is, therefore, a physical fact itself. But there is a physical fact can be deduced from the distance in time along with the distance in space. This is what is called the "interval" in the space-time. [...] The interval between two events is a physical fact about them, not dependent on the particular circumstances of the observer. "
Much has been written about the relationship between the birth of modern capitalism and the Protestant ethic (Weber, Troeltsch, Collinson, etc.) but little has been said about the mutual influence between the result that communion in the development of systems and interface translation.
In this sense, the historian José Antonio Maravall said possible paths to follow. According to him, the notion of "traffic" will give a central place in the bourgeois social system of inspiration, the idea of \u200b\u200bcontract ... in morality, in politics, in law, economics ... because it represents "the characteristic common human species. " According to Adam Smith, "the provision swaps that caused the propensity to negotiate, change, or exchange one thing for another is the basic relationship of society." Thus, born in the eighteenth century terms as traffic on the roads, "traffic of goods", "traffic of ideas."
L. Goldman noted that in this tendency to consider everything in terms of "traffic", lies the root of individualism, the notion of equality in the parties, freedom in the mutual treatment of the same, the property of universality of the rules of tolerance. Today we know that it also lies the idea of \u200b\u200btaxation for standardization. Cfr
, José Antonio Maravall, Studies in the history of English thought (XVIII-XIX) , Mondadori, Madrid, 1991, pp. 253-254
A fleeting reality, infotografiable, requires proper management of ACME devices:
"Imagine that you want to see a very elusive animal that only comes out at night. One possibility is to take a picture with flash, but flash itself cause the flight to safety. The same happened with the atom, in principle, could take a picture with flash, but the electrons send flash drive. One way to avoid frightening the animal is to use very weak light or infrared light can not see, but with no output electrons: to observe the position of an electron is needed, as little a quantum of radiation, as X-ray, to be exact, which would be sufficient to eject the electron from the atom. Infrared quanta are soft and could be used to measure the speed of an electron, like the police use radar to check the speed of a car, but precisely because their long wavelength, infrared quanta would give us the electron's position with little accuracy. If one attempts to measure simultaneously the velocity and position of an electron, both come affected by a certain amount of uncertainty, as the famous Heisenberg relationship. "
Otto R. Frisch, The fission of the atom to the hydrogen bomb. Memories of a nuclear physicist , Alianza, Madrid, 1982 (Cambridge, 1979), pp . 114-115
The pasigrafía is a writing system that are written by the concepts rather than words or phonetic. The objective (as in ordinary numbers 1, 2, 3, etc.) Is to be intelligible to people of any language. The term was applied to a system proposed in 1796. Pasi in Greek means "all." Leibniz and Alexander von Humboldt are associated with the concept.
"Proceedings of the National Council are printed having got picked up a stenographer, that is, a man who writes as fast as we speak, art preserved in England, formerly used by the Romans and had improved in France, where even diversified into musical notes and in other ways, as also pasigrafía began practicing. Or art of understanding what is written in any language, without understanding [...] which reached perfection in Prussia with a few numbers. "
Servando Teresa de Mier, Memoirs. A Mexican priest exiled in Europe , Trama Editorial, Madrid, 2006 (circa 1818), p. 75
With Screen gaining their independence from television, as happened thanks to video games, the computer began to be much more "personal" in the early 1980's. The arrival of an ergonomist organization relationship with the computer came mainly through the screen and mouse. The PC monitor singled exclusive relationship between machine and user, but mostly it was the mouse who made the computer a tool for individual use. The mouse allows you to navigate and to extend brain coordination, arm, virtual space that makes the experience unique and responds only to the individual user. As indicated by Steven Johnson, the desktop metaphor on the screen is by definition a monadic: it belongs to the realm of perception and individual psychology, and that is why it is so hard to think of the PC in a more communal, more social.
The first moving images projected on screens produced by mechanical means and the will to systematic symbolic were the Photo and Cinema. The Edison kinetoscope (1894) was an individual vision device with a small display on which bent the viewer to see through the images: a definitive step in new visual perception and photography stereoscopes had opened a little earlier. The stereoscope (Wheatstone, 1851), a device with two slits through which slides are different from the same object creating the feel of a single image, can be considered the first example of combining new concepts of innovation, style life and market penetration. In the first three months were sold in the United Kingdom 250,000. These two small screens, which were placed very close before the eyes, in isolation from the environment, creating a black frame around the image, which did not move when you walked, gave rise to a fabulous business and worlds stereoscopic plates available to hand. Baudelaire, no friend of naturalism in representation, see the stereoscope as a black hole that "absorbed thousands of eager eyes that were bent over their peepholes and skylights on the infinite." A new visual culture was born. The world is in the eye within an area bounded visual and mechanical transilluminator. The screen became the main vehicle of transmission. Film and television have been the preeminent model of the relationship between perception and screen throughout the twentieth century: a stationary screen that offers content in a standardized way: a place of vision, not action. The relationship is unidirectional and is spectator remains passive. But over the years, thanks to the gradual portability of equipment, the fusion of different formats, and the progressive individual interaction offered by digital radio means, the display has changed enormously, both in size and visual considerations and productive function. The current display is an integrated broadcast and production, wherein the data query and access to services, menus and options are superimposed on the images: the touch screen makes the screen directly on the surface. Interactive television and computer have become spaces in which we work and where you're having fun or information.
The screen summarizes the new tool Digital because it happens our work and the result of our work. The fundamental laws of mass production of capitalism seem to reach a paroxysm, as if it were a implosion, revealed a complete disruption, but the plant remains the same. The difference is that workers move across machines. This is not the worker does not know the ultimate meaning of what he does, plunged into a row of nails making machines in series, but the meaning is open because access is common. And the proximity and mobility provided by the computer situational made everything a little fuzzy. In managing this new area of \u200b\u200brelationships, the ultimate meaning of your work you. And in you all the responsibility falls. Tell that to any office. They can not say the same of pallets: not as easy to "accountability" on-site staff.
The screen is about the personal computer what the numbers or hands on the clock: without them, time would still be something of experts on sand or a simple abstract entity. The small rollers inside of a clock are not there simply to tell the time, but that time is presented symbolically through the motions of rods in a sphere. Think how organizational image of the sphere with two sticks and 12 equidistant numbers is no longer "time" itself. Similarly, the screen makes visible the processes of the machine, turning them into an understandable language and dialogue which in turn began to organize new situations always growing, always opt for adhesion. The need for dialogue inherent in the search for social meaning of technology, but the systematic, standard imposes unique relationship. And so, it would not hurt to start thinking about the Collective Computer rather than on the PC.
On the screen, all of mathematics, electronic engineering, major technical difficulties disappear and reappear converted into symbols, reduced to words or icons, flashing forward to our next step. Is the window that gives access. All electronics research and mathematical calculations were unable to create their own PC. Socialize needed computing. What is the relationship expert who was not possible with a computer that is expressed through red lights, who speaks only through a printer and receiving information through stacks of punch cards? How well could become a nuisance as it meant that after the personal computer? The foundations of modern computing were established already in the 40 and 50, with contributions from people like Alan Turing and John von Neumann-always under military sponsorship, but was seeking a method of communication with the machine that precipitated, in the early 70's, the reality of a computer that said "hello." That greeting was the product of many things and many hands. Similarly, the space where the screen-expressed, and the prosthesis that represents us in the world of mouse-machine was itself a result of many others. Analyze their biographies can reveal interesting facts about the importance of the uses and needs of each moment in the way the computer has acquired "personal."
Television was the medium in which the screen has been most helpful in the twentieth century. Its ubiquity, its insertion into the everyday environment of people (in the form of furniture, as in the 50 to 60, or associated with a technophile aesthetic, as at present), and improvement from a side view and quick adaptation color (1954), made the TV the appropriate metaphor for a space in which the user places a good deal of time and trust (7 hours of "discontinuous care" front of the TV in the U.S., 5 hours Spain in 2002). Since 1974, 97% of U.S. households have television, and since 1988, more than two receivers on average in each house. Major European countries reached the figure of 92% of domestic television penetration in 1986. With radar (Radio Detecting and Ranging) was developed during World War II, the position of an object is determined by an electronic signal on a monitor round, which visual space is governed by spatial coordinates, all arranged around a central point is the position of the radio antenna. The perception produced an image on the screen, a bright and emerged a strategy, simulations and calculations. The information becomes a visible actor on the screen. Our actions on the object are also levied on it. The possibility of interaction offered whisk radar engineers to work on joysticks, light pens, and finally to the mouse. But at the same time, the association between the display and monitoring of distance, both reminiscent of the early ideas of Galileo in front of the star prosecution reduced to symbols in a crystal, will be further accentuated by the use of observation and monitoring screens, especially thanks to radar. Hence we call monitor to our computer screens.
worth remembering back to Douglas Engelbart. While waiting for demobilization as a naval radar technician in 1945, shortly after the war ended, he read a magazine article Vanevar Bush, "As We May Think." Back home, he continued his experience with the radar as an electrical engineer. Years later, all those hours trying to discern the real threats posed by virtual beeping radar screens were transfigured into new modes of information and communication: "I realized that if the computers you can display information on printed paper, so they could do in screens . When I saw the connection between a screen-and tele-information processor and a means to represent symbols a person, everything was removed. I went home and drew a system in which computers would draw symbols on the screen where I could browse through different information spaces with knobs and buttons and watch words, data and graphics in different ways. "
In the era of the first large computers such as ENIAC (1944), EDVAC (1945), UNIVAC (1947), and IBM's series of the 50 and 60, how to enter commands and extract results was through punched cards and tapes. Green or red buttons populate a flickering boards were aware of the activity of the machine. With the advent of radar and its application in electrical activity signals, relays and valves, computers, information is displayed: The machine language provides some visual relationship with the user through a new alphabet, which end up forming an interface.
In the 60's, engineers such as John Licklider attempt to "marry the human and electronic elements." In 1963, Ivan Sutherland made Sketchpad, a computer with pen on the table fixed to move in a direction actions triggered by connected to a computer monitor, and using a first set symbolic interface with direct manipulation of graphic symbols. An operator could create graphics on the screen when touched with a pencil of light. When you change something on the screen, also changed in the computer's memory. The display real-time interactive doing: "We live in a physical world whose properties we are familiar with time and we can predict and observe. But we lack the same familiarity with concepts not perceptible in the physical world. It is in the electronic window in which to see the wonderful world of mathematics. "
Although in 1965 developed the first trackball, also for air traffic control will be in 1967 when Doug Engelbart invented the mouse. " Engelbart recalls which was inspired by a device called a "planimeter", which an engineer slipped on a chart to calculate the area under a curve. Among many engineers this compact device was as common as a measurement rule. The mouse provided a practical and superior to interact with a computer that does not deform symbolic reasoning capabilities of the user. The most obvious model was the car, whose driver system presents a clear and direct steering and change direction, stepping on the gas pedal and accelerate, brake pedal and slow down. Cars-and mouse-using hand-eye coordination, in which humans are very adept at reading information. Engelbart (or Kay, who developed the idea of \u200b\u200bdesktop) then argued that "by using a computer and a video terminal to compose documents, it would be possible to widen the entire writing process." Alan Kay, meanwhile, started work as a desktop screen and every project as a paper on the desk.
Once integrated hardware keyboard, monitor, and mouse, all expressible be done visually. The search for a graphical language that is able to organize information that depends on another, with the volume that implies, will be next step in creating an interface that "justifies" socially and commercially the idea of \u200b\u200bthe computer.
Parc Xerox engineers began to develop computers to early 1970 with the intention of certain fears ahead of a company's copiers meet the growing interconnection of two different media: computers drew their information through printers. Assign the number of copies to be printed in the program was a possibility that should stun company executives photocopies. Xerox adopted a new strategy that led in 1973 to the Xerox Alto, a desktop computer with keyboard and screen. The monitor was vertical to match the actual format of a page: the idea of \u200b\u200bvirtual space had not curdled. XEROX was based on investigations of Licklider and Engelbart. In addition to using a mouse and windows, the Xerox Alto also provided a screen bit-mapped ", where each display element could be manipulated. This allowed the user to climb charts and mixing text and graphics on the screen.
In 1979, Apple began working on a computer called Macintosh. Draft Jef Raskin, the computer suggested a unifying text and graphics in the same way that had already been investigated at Xerox Parc Apple had introduced the Apple Lisa, who already had drop-down menus and menu bars. It was expensive (10,000 dollars) and sales were not spectacular. The next move was to hire some engineers from Xerox Parc, which carried the invention of the mouse. In 1984, Apple introduced the Macintosh in a TV ad during the football grand final, in which a blonde throws a hammer to cut a big screen Orwellian, and in which an immense masses indoctrinated face smashed in clear reference to IBM. The computer was sold for 2,500 euros. It consisted of high-resolution screen in black and white, keyboard, mouse and 128K of memory. The elegance of the Mac operating system was a great success. Its combination of simplicity, integration and engineering practice was extremely rare at that time. When a file is opened or closed, its symbol is contracted or espandía, which proved to be very friendly to users. Microsoft quickly saw the potential of an interface as well. A year later, Apple had a rudimentary networking system, called AppleTalk, inspired by radio transmission systems (via ether) between the Hawaiian Islands. Meanwhile, the miniaturization of portable devices and subsequent investigations led them new vision technologies applied to the screens of multiple devices: computers, automobile dashboards, electronic equipment and sound film, watches, calculators, video games, elevators, etc. ..
In 1961, the market for the first time an LED (Light Emitting Diode) that combines three primary elements: gallium, arsenic and phosphorus. Calculators and timers will be the first machines to receive those little screens on which appear a few small filaments, as indicating a selective lighting. The LED will be revolutionary to the extent that will allow the development of mass marketing gimmicks, easy to understand and display to the user.
In 1970, Sharp incorporates an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) on one of their calculators, and Optel Corp in an electronic watch in 1971. The process towards the LCD part of the investigations conducted by the Austrian F. Reinitzer in 1888 that led him to discover liquid crystals. The applications of glass screens in the technology industry have been enormous and enormously influential in the marketing of video games, laptops and all kinds of displays on the screen. The LCD displays use much less power than LEDs or fluorescent models allow pocket calculators to work for months (and not for hours, as the LED) without recharging or replacing batteries. In 1983, Toshiba introduced the first laptop with LCD screen. And thanks to the LCD is that Nintendo has the Game Boy in 1989. The LCD, however, is difficult to see from a side angle. That
start partially corrected in 1961 when the American P. Weimer invents the TFT (Thin Film Transistor), which besides offering better image quality, had a higher refresh rate, which is especially important for multimedia applications that use animated video sequences and mobile telecommunication devices. The TFT is the current standard of flat screens on most playback devices and interaction.
Although studies on the possibility of acting directly on the screen and were targeted to the development of radar and optical pencils, will be in the 70's when the touch screen technology will start being realistic. In 1971, Sam Hurst, founder of Elographics, creates a first sensor touch screen. In 1974, some marketing starts and finally patented in 1977 as we know it: first, at the ATM.
"What happens is that the machine does not get tired," complained a local Congolese in 1883, when he could not pursue, fed up rowing, steamboats that sailed up the Congo River.
Western portability is expansionary, but now carried to the four corners of the world individually. The unification of protocols, standards and interfaces in the overall use of ICT makes mobile users to custom Trojan horse of a bulimic and not a little anarchy of information systems whose main enemy is not themselves recognize. And those who are attacked without mercy: "The engine and radio are the lifeblood of our divisions of tourists, who are trained or simulate the blitzkrieg."
The interface is the magnet, the pole that attracts and condenses all of our communication. And around creates system, urbanization and structure. Kittler has found that "the digitization of information eliminates the differences between individual means. The sound and image, voice and text are reduced to surface effects, known to consumers as interface. " Vivian Sobchack culture has analyzed this interface to the view that "television, video cassettes, tape recorders and video players and personal computers all form an inclusive representational system whose various forms" interfacializan "to be an absolute world alternative that incorporates the viewer / user to an off-state spatially Timed weakly and almost disembodied. " Enzensberger, years ago, also viewed as a system interface to a total unification process, "Satellite News, color TV, cable TV, cassettes, video tapes, video recorders, videophones, stereo, laser techniques, electrostatic processes playback, high speed electronic printing, composition and learning machines, microfiches with electronic access, print, radio, time-sharing computers, data banks, all these new media are constantly forming new connections among themselves and with media older as print, radio, film, television, telephone, teletype, radar, etc. All of them are clearly coming together to form a universal system. "
In the extreme culture of connectivity, the reality becomes an apologetic catalog of all technological objects "to consume an object, one consumes all," said Richard Stivers, because only one reflect all the others, thanks to the unification provided by the interface. Is no stranger to this the fact that the process of concentration and standardization has led to users to design the experience consumption on a comparable basis, as has shrewdly sensed the historian Brian Winston. The homogenization produced by the unification of standards involves a radical rejection of the users of lines that are not continuous, as when Coca-Cola had to suspend its attempt to change the taste of your product, to see how true masses took to the streets to protest. It is still interesting to see how attitudes are activated binding, socially speaking, only when the standards are jeopardized. Nor is it insignificant that this happens almost exclusively in the commercial domain.
The standard interface is more than simple communication and display spaces. They are really a social technology, a standard political and cultural relations. Jacques Ellul in the sixties spoke of how technology integrates into the machine in society: "Build the kind of world that the machine needs and introduces order where the clatter of machinery incoherent debris threat. Clarifies, organizes and streamlines ago in the realm of the abstract what the machine did in the domain of work. It is efficient and brings efficiency to everything. "Interface is the fat that we have built machines to adopt a logical sense in the social mentality, even for the show to be lived as" social space " to allow interpretation codes are viewed as horizontal and inclusive.
addition, the digital language, the main promoter of the modern importance of the interface, it is imperative, essentially for reasons of "security." Everything that is not digital should be digital: "The more complicated a device manufactured by traditional engineering methods, their flaws become more unpredictable, catastrophic and difficult to solve," he has sensed the Mexican writer Naief Yehya. Analog technology is beginning to be perceived in terms problematic as it can get to curtail the communicative fluency within the system. The nature of the "analog" is seen as a retarder, since it is not created around the "necessary" organic conditions of growth and progress. The shift from analogue to digital in the mobile domain confirms this. Gilles Deleuze proposed the metaphor of "filum mechanical" as the self-organizing process by which elements of the universe reach a critical point and begin to cooperate to form a higher-level entity. Yehya, following this route, points to a fundamental idea in this sense: the process of organization of modern communication is perceived as organic, natural. Items Simple join in a process of communion, to produce more complex organisms, as if we tried to biology. Those elements that do not provide this complexity should be separated. The vision of a Darwinian-based technological change is an organic relationship between the various formats and media (overlapping, passing the baton, interfacializándose) results in a total mechanical biological concept of discourse. No wonder, then, that the discovery of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)-the main finding of the sixties-create what has been called the "information paradigm" information as an organizing principle for itself: "The genetic code was the code, and transmission became the preferred way of approaching all sorts of information." The term "paradigm", in fact, was established as a standard in science since 1970, the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn used the term to describe "those scientific achievements which are universally known for some time, provide model problems and solutions a scientific community. " Kuhn himself and sensed the potential analogies of "paradigm" in the technological development of the time.
In this atmosphere of inclusiveness, not only just judging what is operational or not in terms of the necessary dependence on system factors, but also condemns the very concept of autonomy, something they like it or not technophiles continues to pose a major hindrance to further development of the empire. Because history also shows that not always the creation of standards has been possible, and that possibilities exist to circumvent it. In 1875 he created in Paris the International Agency of Weights and Measures. However, there are still many differences in the use of measures in different countries and regions. The burning question of the different rail gauges was many countries, including Spain, to adopt national strategies on the issue, such as automobile driving on the left in Britain. The continents are using different voltages, different light sockets, etc. The continental battle for the television standard has resulted in multiple systems, mutually incompatible: PAL, NTSC, SECAM, etc. Microsoft's monopoly is being countered by the day. English, although prevalent, is closely watched by other languages \u200b\u200bwhich are receiving increasing international attention as the Castilian and Arabic, etc.
cases are huge, so many that at first glance, appear to put the trend solfa mandatory standards. Certainly it is a mirage, given the apparent exponential growth of common codes worldwide. However, the maintenance of many of these "cases" indicates how far the vaunted lines of globalization are more difficult to expand from which it must be assumed. Marketing strategies (and nationalist pressure) have much to say in the creation of such barriers: with them, protect markets from possible invasion from the competition (the "regions" of the DVD formats, television systems, etc) . But to what extent we can not consider some of these universal brake systems as simple results of the will of social and cultural groups to maintain cultural identity against the global flood? Why not consider the difference in electrical voltage in the same way we perceive the culinary and linguistic differences between various cultures and societies? Often, the obsession with the standardization of communication systems leads to acculturate social backgrounds that gave them life. The contemporary enthusiasm for the connectivity seems to have become anathema to local or regional systems: does not seek the creation of interfaces, but imposing some specific.
The pursuit of integrated interface promises a perfect space model where all possible experiences, without distinction of countries, cultures or classes. However, to build that kind of "scratch space", is applauded as necessary to eradicate all vestiges of local cultural logic, those that existed in pre-laptop, those that still exist today, "hindering" a truly integrated communication . To avoid such inoperative braking in achieving ubiquity and mobility within a fully colonized world, the powers of surveillance made sustained efforts to create supra than a universal umbrella offer individuals the opportunity to operate wherever and under whatever circumstances. In 1978, the U.S. Army launched into space on NAVSTAR (Navigation System with Timing And Ranging), the first of a series of 24 satellites, with ground receiving stations, form a system of fixing position at planetarium (latitude, longitude and height) with a maximum margin of error of 20 meters. Since launching in 1994 of the latest satellite schedule, the system is known as Global Positioning System or GPS. All the satellites are controlled at Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado. Not until 1980 were allowed access to civilian industry to some GPS applications such as mobile telephony and mapping. At GPS, we follow a myriad of satellites in the U.S., Europe and Japan, almost exclusively devoted to civilian communications. integration The show ends up being an aesthetic, a tecnoestética: "Everybody sees the same world changed, you experience the same total environment. The phantasmagoria assumes the position of a natural and objective fact: it becomes a social norm. Addiction compensatory sensory reality ends up being a form of social control. " Social control, which is observed not only in the field of mass media, but in the actual structuring of a global labor system and supposedly idyllic.
The evolution of standards in systems of machines around the world makes things potentially ubiquitous inhabitants: they can go wherever they want, fully synchronized: they can find personal and professional horizons, but also can be moved to where either because they know how to use the machines. The case of labor exploitation by technology companies is a good example of how knowledge of assembly techniques of local workers has led to the displacement of the industry to other continents in search of cheap labor, or has caused the recent internal migration in Southeast Asia, Mexico, Brazil, or Morocco at a smaller scale. There, the maquiladoras, or assembly companies and manufactured components from the matrices American, European or Japanese, have made much of the economic output of the 90's. The mobility offered by a company in the promise of constant time-space experience ideal, exciting and spooky, is assumed by many workers as the fragility of a rootless and miserable working hours.
In a culture that is torn between the right to privacy and publicity of it, and facing the absence of channels of social construction, the safety of the media (and the system connected to / by them) has reached fever pitch levels. The values \u200b\u200bof mobility and portability have been directly affected by the suggestion of insecurity and the search for architectures and security protocols.
technological portability has been possible thanks to the miniaturization of devices and the digitization and global satelización the airwaves over the past twenty years. Our mobile phones, laptops, credit cards, internet files, etc, move in a space with full coverage. This instant availability of our portable mobility makes us perceive only in terms fetish and illusionists of the machine, built in us an almost prosthetics. However, we forget that the current mobility also responds to a process of integration in the language: the outer space has become an inspiring place because it gives security. That security is based on all machines use the same language and accept the same formats. An individual fixed mobile much of his security in technology, in the certainty that, wherever you are, know the rules of use that allow you to negotiate risk situations. The interfaces therefore must be unified, if not, the mobility would be a useless production. Otherwise, there would be many tourists in half the world (715 million in 2002).
In a society increasingly connected and more dependent on their own connectivity and security paradigm, paradoxes arise often portray the stunning transformation in the functioning of our social and political relations. One of them comes from the widespread afincamiento protocol as our access control mechanism and as fundamental to our security device and system.
With the advent Internet, certain forms of identification and access own military environment has been gradually consolidated in the civil sphere. Indeed, the development of the Internet has evolved from highly centralized concept of C + C (Command and Control) to a network of multiple different networks, independent of each other, but united by language "consistent." Thus, the notion of compatibility has been one of the arguments leading to the growth of the network and, in practice, an obsession of thinkers, engineers, industrialists, politicians and Internet users. In fact, the steady rise of the Internet since the early 90's is due almost exclusively the steadfast pursuit of protocols, keys, who can link with great confidence and without loss of data from numerous systems and computer languages, some of them very inconsistent. At the end of the day, the very name of the Internet reflects that this is a "between networks." It was thus to find a standard that would serve as a common language.
The race started from those standards when the NSF (National Science Foundation), the official U.S. government agency for the legitimation of scientific applications, unified various computer centers in 1985, but especially when allowed Commercial use of Internet in 1991. Previously, research on programming languages \u200b\u200band had opened much of the way, but this was primarily aimed at computer writing systems as useful as possible rather than to provide a common language between different systems.
Achieving protocols, universal languages \u200b\u200bwhich connect disparate sources is a premise that philosophers, scientists and humanists have pointed out almost from the Baroque. Leibniz was the first to find a symbolic communication system that adapts to any existing language model. He called characteristica Universalis: "Through the universal language Type any information that could be systematically recorded in abstract symbols with any problems of reasoning could be articulated and resolved. "In 1867, Melville Bell, father of Alexander Graham Bell, one of the main inventors of the telephone, developed the Visible Speech a universal alphabet capable of encoding various systems uniformly. And in 1943, Noam Chomsky, connected in those days a military investigation into the Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory of the U.S. Navy at Harvard, proposes a Universal Grammar with the same purpose.
Undoubtedly, the pursuit of those standards that make compatible various languages \u200b\u200bhad the potential to create a fluent system of communication and interaction, but at the same time opened the can of worms as far as the use of a universal language put on the table serious security issues since anyone code available relevant symbolic could be introduced without a vast and often sensitive information network. That is the beginning of a paradox outlined above, which today already has a central character. protocols serve to move in the network with immediacy and with the assurance that the translation work. Protocol comes from the Greek protokollon , designating the attached sheet the cover of a manuscript containing headlines or brief summaries of the contents of the text. In this way, it facilitated the search for the issues and helped to understand handwriting hard to read. The protocol also has been traditionally understood as a set of regulations and agreements that countries or institutions have been among them to "correct" the differences of customs and cultural and diplomatic. It is a way to make sure no misunderstanding and to expedite the official relations.
Likewise, the protocol in the current media environment is defined as the set of regulations to standardize a procedure repetitive "between computer systems. Among the protocols known to the public, include those directly linked to the Internet and telephony systems combined satellite and the http or wap . All these keys allow us to bind to a common network and convert the different systems in a code that all computers can read and interpret. Now it seems clear that when the various systems lived separately without common protocols, the degree of self-confidence was much higher, given that borders between them were much more difficult to cross, but the price was the lack of connectivity and a certain self-sufficiency. Today, the situation is completely opposite: the unification offers unlimited possibilities for exchange and sharing of information, but the risks to the security of a system composed protocols are sensed enormous. That is, the establishment of common keys generated automatically lead to complex processes of encryption and coding to ensure that the global network does not cause their destruction. The interface, the standard is the guarantee.
The safety is based on each of us has its own access code, which also legitimizes us as citizens full electronic. But at the same time we believe that managing these passwords by companies in the sector can seriously infringe on our right to privacy and personal security. Another of the contradictions of this new border membrane between public and private. However, the strengthening of the interactive interfaces from the 80's has been a significant change in the perception of the necessary security environment is to create machines. This is without doubt due to the application of interactivity increasingly simple in use but more extensive in their capabilities. The machine responds, ultimately creating a family relationship, personal, reliable. The web of trust and security that have plotted the interfaces between user and machine is huge, and conditions without doubt a global perception of the technological phenomenon.
electronic user security today is based on the reversibility: the assurance that a mistake can be corrected. In the first commercial computer interfaces developed by Xerox and Apple in the late 70's, the fundamental premise of the psychologists was that the reversibility (Yes-No-Cancel) not directly punish inefficiency or user error but it extends the safety spectrum in a teaching, while helping to train him when proceeding with the machine. In the Interface manual Apple Computers in 1984 reads: "You can encourage people to explore your application through the use of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that actions on the computer are usually reversible. People need to feel that they can try things without damaging the system, creating safety nets for people to feel comfortable learning and using your product [...] Warn people always before starting a task that cause irretrievable loss of data. The alert boxes are a good way to alert users. However, when the options are clear and appropriate and prompt response is, learning to use a program should be relatively free of errors. This means that frequent alert boxes are a good indication that something is wrong with the design of the program. "
The user does not feel that constant Yes-No-Cancel as a nuisance but accepts it as something fundamental, connected to high degree of esteem that is for him or her safety. The appearance of such socialized interfaces to users in the new domain of digital relationships, avoiding sensitivities and generating confidence in the ability to undo the steps taken so far. It is interesting to note that the save data on your computer, many call it "saving" as if the computing environment was really a dark road full of pitfalls, the way of gaming. Witness the revealing comment from a teenager in 1983 after his experience with a computer Sinclair: "The other day when I was using a word processor, I tried to save him. I had spent all morning typing. I started at 8 am and ended at lunchtime. With you to make a single mistake, it's garbage. I'm panicked. Typing sucks and I wanted to make sure to save it. So I saved it all on tape [cassette] without stopping the machine. Then I took the tape to the machine from a friend of mine, to see if I could download it there. If it were possible, then I had done well. I was lucky because I did not lose those eight hours front of the keyboard. "
In 1976, Wang Laboratories engineers realized that many users of word processing equipment were terrified at the fact of losing a day's work after inadvertently pressing the wrong button. And they were not just secretaries who complained of such action: in 1981, former President Jimmy Carter lost some pages of his memoirs to hit a wrong button on a computer Lanier $ 12,000. A call to the company led it to develop a utility disk that enabled Carter to recover the original hard disk data. Wang engineers carried out a design that would make these errors could not occur. Access orders are produced through a simple menu screen. Years later, the design of Wang would be known by the cliche of "user-friendly" ("user friendly" or even GUI, Graphic User Interface, or graphical user interface). If the user makes a mistake, it is only a problem of their own adaptability and adaptation, not a machine issue.
whole system graphical user interface is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bconsistency. The elements must be consistent with each other and the way in which we operate. When a dialog box appears before us in computer screen, where we have three options to operate-IF-NO-CANCEL ", if we give the ENTER key, by default will activate the IF function. This is what consistency means, that in any computer and any application, whether the brand is and with any operating system, the mean SI ENTER key. Consistency is the core of the safety, reversibility and the standard. With consistency not only give more secure our relationship with the computer but is the main tool in the learning process, exploration and expansion of its use, because even though we face a new program, we know there are a number of actions that are always identical: Ctrl + S, Ctrl + O, Enter, etc.
That new attitude to safety management in the sense that it requires individual responsibility in safeguarding overall system contrasts with the disappearance of public accountability of such safeguards. The gradual extinction (privatization) of government policies in the public space in the energy domain, in the workplace, in the management of solidarity., Coverage slogan is the "active responsibility" in this new world deregulated and trapped in non-market laws.
An obvious example of this situation is the application and perception of the car. Speed \u200b\u200bis the fundamental value of our cultural and moral system. However, it seems logical that speed and safety should be a hand for a real social operability. But that has not happened in the case of the car. We have agreed among all the value of the velocity is higher in the hierarchy than security.
Of all the civil-purpose machines invented during the twentieth century, the automobile has been to distance the ingenuity that has claimed more lives. In Spain, killed between 75 and 100 people in a car crash or bike each week. What other machine is allowed to kill this way? What if mobile phones will take the lives of 10 people each week or each month or each year, or the use of elevators reach such a large volume of claims? On the car, our societies have placed a kind of contract with the mechanical world, a security contract, even a kind of constitution, constitution. Traffic accidents have occurred since the beginning of the history of the car, have continued to this day and never has implemented a policy of restraint. The accident represents the public notice of the effects of the inefficiency of the user on the management of the machine (and speed), and also the maximum fine or-death consequences, "circumstances that has force of law, so final.
is fully established that the responsibility for an accident is always strictly individual. That's where we set the variable security. The potential social inefficiency machines passengers killed on the bus or train or plane has nothing to do with their deaths. That's why these accidents arouse more attention and coverage. We arouse more feelings, because it is unfair. It is an undeserved tragedy for those people, but a professional, the conductor may have failed. Accidents Car morally justified precisely because the responsibility is individual. The personal freedom is the argument that sustains this moral model, and we can see publicly advertising images of cars. Individual freedom and speed and are married in the unconscious. And by the way, is treated without problems the huge number of casualties, "collateral" on the roads worldwide.
Security Standard Keyboard: Standard and Standards
The keyboard of the typewriter, which marked a milestone in the evolution of interfaces, teaches us how patently obsolete technology has managed to impose himself on the strength of invidividuo. The interfaces can come designed by industry, but the ultimate reason for being, its setting is a matter of real users.
In 1865, Christopher Scholes and his brother, a school teacher, designed a typewriter, on a model of corporate cosmology: the "philosophy of interchangeable parts" as part of a work environment string extends to the home. Isacc M. Singer and had been applied with great success in the 1860's in your sewing machine. These were pieces that build machines, so that the latter were not only a perfect assembly of various parts. The dissemination and widespread use of such technologies increased significantly in a short period of time. All machines were the same, their parts were interchangeable and easily replaceable without affecting the rest of the set. And above all, all users were becoming the same. The machine makes no distinction or prejudice the ability of those who drive. The user is all possible. The
Scholes and a team of linguists analyzed what were the most commonly used letter sequences, so that your organization on the board, with some practice, provided a fast and a transcript printed typography was not subject to the whims of calligraphy . However, it soon became apparent that we had to solve the mechanical problems that made the keys stick together. The result was the qwerty keyboard , which is the sequence of the first letters in the top row. It was patented in 1873.
qwerty keyboard born to prevent binding of the lyrics, but at the same time reducing the actual performance of the user. In the first years after the appearance of typewriter keys striking the paper on the roll were not visible, so often, when it got stuck two or more keys, the user continued to write without knowing he was repeating the same letter are blocked. To do this, Scholes away the vowels from each other, since these letters were most used, to be slower the concatenation of the press. But here that 127 years later, when we no longer have that problem with a computer, still using qwerty keyboard .
So who reacts and sets the standard? Is the standard of an already given, or on the contrary, daily practice and negotiation are defining their evolution? In 1904 he convened an international conference to set the standard among different models of keyboard, but to no avail as typing teachers flatly refused to adopt another standard that is not the qwerty . The convenience of learning in each of the users is the tractive force in the progress of a medium like the keyboard. These are not mere technical factors that shape a process, but that individuals highly value the immediate availability on a keyboard, and to assess unless the phases of learning. Thus, the influence of global standard itself produces its own impasse: scientists and designers can not develop new research on keyboards because they seem doomed to failure. In 1930, August Dvorak keyboard layout developed for the U.S. Navy, in collaboration with a professional group of typists, which provided more than the speed and reliability of typing. However, although it is still used in some places, never imposed on Scholes model, which will become standard.
In 1956, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began his experiments on keyboards that operate directly on the internal architecture of computers. The user can now establish direct relationship with the computer through direct orders typed. In 1973, Don Lancaster achieves a direct connection between a keyboard and a television. The information is already deployed on a ordinary TV. But nobody is proposing a change occur in the keyboard model to suit the new practices of computer users. The few proposals that fail to progress do not yet seem able to influence a large scale. qwerty keyboard is used today in 45 countries with Roman alphabets, except in 3 cases.
The keyboard has become, thanks to the computer, the tool environment inherent in many of the citizens: it is literally its projection in the mechanical order. Not expected to change soon. The voice software is not yet fully enough in a culture still connected to some privacy in communications. Thus, created centuries ago, the keyboard Scholes still reigns as standard, although their functions have been depleted because of an outdated design. The unit features a very settled protocols involving just affected by the comfort and the technical difficulties of such enormous change. Nor should we forget that the keyboard was designed and executed in English, which as the Greenwich Meridian Time mark international language. The universal keyboard interface greatly helped linguistic colonialism of England and the U.S., thanks to the huge bureaucracy paper got a great insight into the cultural fabric of the colonized countries in Africa and Asia. the qwerty keyboard is not seriously threatened is also in good part because the first producer technology are the U.S.. And yet there is still speaking English.
Our current communication devices are functional 1) if they are fit to work in all situations, and 2) if consistent among them. Or what is the same: 1) We want everyone to adapt to our standards, and 2) To ensure that all machines have the same language. And how do we define the interface but as the visual and tactile system by relating men and machines, which by nature must be unitary, and the mathematical language with which the machines talk? The interface is the magnet: the rock around which all our media tour.
mobility is accelerated when people create a common language with which to get along with strangers. The language itself was and is the main communication interface. The language border has always been social crucible and empires have many borders. The example of pidgin (Chinese pronunciation of the word business) is well known: a hybrid English spoken by many Asians from the early twentieth century, through the long (bad) business dealings with the British. Spanglish, in substance, is another current example. Languages \u200b\u200bare results of differences. The search for a common code is the essence of communication.
But if the language has been essential in these cultural and imperial transmission, new electronic and digital languages \u200b\u200bpresent new achievements in the development of common systems and adapted to use simple and direct. This is not about creating hybrids made of friction, but to unify the general assembly in a single code, along the lines of "natural law" of the tecnoeconomía based on the creation of standards. In the new religion of connectivity universalized, it makes no sense fighting with strangers machine languages.
Homo mobilis assumes that everyone is moving too using their own standards, and indeed finds a reality. The standard rule governing mobility. When you move around, you just want someone else's computer that sits against which has "the" operating system, to avoid wasting time. For ATMs and the current system of graphic display menus give good example. Most graphics display screens are menu driven set, a computer language born in the early 80's, and immediately applied to the ATM, and later to all information systems on display. Multivision provides menu options (not expandable) and gives the confidence to "undo" a decision already made. In the sensitive case of ATMs, they found a large initial reluctance among a public fearful of mechanical error or spoofing, the "reversibility" in the choice of options was a direct and personal hook. Later, to expand on this point. The standard information with which the machines communicate with us is imperative, in that it generated total dependence on the user, since under the false mantle of ease of use, are monopolized the possibilities of different ways to perceive other visual organization .
portability standard creates force. Before the advent of the railway in 1841, the hours marked the public watches Bristol and London were different. When the first was 6:15 in the City was 6:00. Nobody cared because no one affected the time difference. Relations between the cities were happening at a speed at which the minutes and seconds had relatively. With the advent of the train, or the telegraph, and implementation schedules, the hours were consolidated for the benefit of a "system of internal integration of time" that the machine itself imposes on users. The modern transport schedules so transformed short, our conception of productive time in all areas: work, school, the fun, family, the trip. Everything is governed by an orderly logic of time, which gives meaning to information. Later, the virtual portability of communication devices of the twentieth century, transported add to wish oneself, to carry everything yourself. This distinction is essential because it confirms the standard definition of a common platform on which each individual or industry displays its contents. The perception of the standards as simple scenarios to fill has blinded a deeper critique of expansionist nature of communication, since the "common system" is conceived in a closed court and non-negotiable: the freedom of the individual and his inalienable right to communicate and receive information anywhere, anytime.
mobility and portability require the establishment of operational standards that make our management and the world. Not to leave anyone out. The notion of temporal ordering sets out measures to know where a connection to its point of departure. In the tortuous path of colonial exploration, conquest of interfaces has been one of the most valuable booty. Search centuries of a system for calculating sea land length paved the way towards a world clock, set, of course, the "starting point" in Greenwich, England in 1833. The portability has been partner to use a consistent interface to allow a passenger to measure its position in the same way in any part of the world. Therefore the world must adapt to it. If something is perceived as contiguous colonialism in the nineteenth and twentieth century and contemporary globalization is the fact that not first conceive an area "free movement", not now conceive a self-time, outside the system. "No culture should be isolated": this was the line adopted by the United States in the late nineties in a magazine Correspondence, edited by Daniel Bell, and condemning those companies who do not want to become "global."
The only time that the individual runs, sold as a privatized time but in full harmony with the whole, thanks to technology and management techniques. Airports, train stations, vehicles, all work the same way and not confuse the user. The buttons on computers, and hundreds of small kitchen appliances, personal, etc. Are designed to be recognizable and similar to everyone else: consistent design language. Individuals display their mobility through communication to communion with their surroundings. The language of the machine keeps him warm.
The main interface of modern scientific development comes on the heels of thermodynamics and hydrostatics of the nineteenth century, two branches of physics responsible for analyzing the encounter between different elements. Subsequent developments quantum and relativity, added a new depth to its definition. The new physics, especially since the model proposed by Einstein, stressed the importance of considering the observation in the dynamics of the observed world, without treating it as an addition to this strange world. Our senses are good As part of this interface:
"Our senses are surfaces that form a common border between our inner and outer parts of matter and space. The surfaces of our senses are active and allow transgressions between "internal matter and space" and "external matter and space." Time is the domain required to pass through areas of our senses. "
quantum theory says: "An interface is an entity that forms the common border between two parts of a system and as a means to exchange information between those parties. By convention, a party the system is called "observer" and the other "object." Information between the observer and the object is exchanged through the interface and through symbols. Any exchange of information is called as such. "
order to establish an accurate description of the world we observe is necessary to create a space for exchange of information that permits: a kind of permanent checkpoint and durable" One of the positions held to describe any object is what is describable remains in stasis (equilibrium between two opposing forces). If the object varies directly describable in the process of description, no one can expect a complete identification of the given object as the changes yet to come will force us to constantly update the description. "
Leibniz is one of the first researchers to build machines to calculate, in a little closer to the own speed. These machines deployed buttons and wheels, so that the relationship with the calculation is simplified greatly. But apart from the mathematicians, who simplified the job well?
Leibniz calculating machine, 1694
In 1649, Pascal Blais built the first mechanical calculator to facilitate the work of his father, state tax collector.
Pascal's calculating machine, 1649
Hermann Hollerith, an official of the Office of the U.S. Census, he was commissioned in 1890 to design a machine that can reduce the qualifying time tax data and census. Census data in 1880 it took 9 years to be compiled. The "Tab" Hollerith was carried out in 2 ½ years, and used punch cards 56,000,000. And as a historical joke, years later, we find Einstein working employee in the Berne Patent Office, as elaborated the fundamental principles of modern physics.
Hermann Hollerith Tabulator, 1890
The evolution of reliable techniques for recording and archiving has almost always responded to specific institutional needs: the census, census, fiscal monitoring, passport offices the establishment of networks of secret information secure both political and military police, the analysis of periodic cycles, whether natural or macro (with its complex variables), but above all, has been the scientific need which dictated the technical model that currently prevails, as it was in the service of your check, it was somehow their guarantor.
The "I" Cartesian is something that operates on the dividing line between God and the world. The "I" has two faces. An engineer looks at the world around him and the other looks a supernatural world do not understand. Descartes discovers two things: that the "I" can handle both sides, which manipulations in one of them affects the other. Both sides are connected via interfaces. The interface is an "I" under observation. The interface, thus, is a scaffold, a construction intermediate capable of providing the conceptual means necessary.
Descartes made a new way to shape the content of our exchanges with the outside world: a new technology to manage information, analytical insight, whose means of storing and processing information found in the mathematical language of symbols operational and abstract.
few years ago I explain one of the ghosts from my childhood I was accompanying television. I remember those Saturday afternoons, glued to the television, along with my siblings, anxiously awaiting a new release of Coyote and Runner . Since then I had some questions: How can you be so stupid to ruin everything so quickly? How could fate will prime both the poor Coyote? Aside from my fascination with all those devices and inventions that served nothing, and besides my deep revulsion at this twisted ostrich, and a child, I remember clearly, I thought I had hidden trick. That somewhere in history was the key to understanding all those contradictions. Today I know that the story they told was a subtle discourse on the Christian desire on social conformity versus what we can not or will not let us get. But on the other hand, I also know that Coyote was a great metaphor for contemporary technology, on the concept of speed and on the governance of that idea.
The Coyote struggled against speed against a world that was quicker than himself, against an unattainable object of desire, not because he could be caught, but because it went too fast. For that reason, the Coyote would spend the day equipped with all kinds of gadgets, is a superject , in the terminology of Deleuze; needed these machines, these prostheses to put the fork in the world (Roadrunner, a objetil ) to establish an equal relationship. Their machines were almost always speed devices, displacement technologies. The Coyote was a kind of cyborg, a being conscious of that and stop looking at things had to be scribbled at the same speed that stuff. And quite often get it. While, yes, worried about the damn run like ostrich, never remember eating it at the right time.
The story of Coyote and the Road Runner was certainly not new, but perhaps has been the first to reach millions of people simultaneously in a single instant, through television. Actually, it was Galileo who laid the cornerstone of this debate: a hole in which to look very far afield. With the invention of the telescope, the Italian astronomer and others who followed him established that the distances were so huge that it was necessary for a complete rethinking of the idea of \u200b\u200bspeed. More than that, with the telescope it became clear that to establish empirically the slightest notion of speed was necessary to "machine" devices that were able to deduce the distance, to conquer space. Science, from Baroque is a pure exercise to master speed, from the tiniest and infinitesimal physical and chemical processes that occur in nanomilésimas second to the most progressive transformations cosmic, from our constant changes of mood to the infinite variables that make a historical process somewhat fickle. Everything becomes a probability, the Jesuit law relativism. Everything happens to consist of possibilities and variations. Master is variable so as to be more prepared at the time of his ghostly appearance. That is, we are equipped with certain technologies, such as telescope, microscope, to analyze our processes beyond simple sensory perception we or film cameras to capture fleeting reality, we buy televisions, radios or computers to make sense at a speed of communication and management information that runs kilobytes per second, and invent the train, car or plane to turn away something tactile, in light of those nineteenth-century technologies like the telegraph, which predicted a highest speed in the world's information.
With the telescope, man could detect planets light years away from the earth could see them but I could not play, as he went to Coyote. All science came to be founded on the idea of \u200b\u200bprediction, empirical analysis could show things that are intangible, they were far away but we could see clearly in the glass of the machine in front of our eyes. It is extremely difficult to photograph an atom, when lit, it is ejected. What we see is a trace of the atom, through which we infer its existence. The escape velocity is the objective measure. Observe the stars supposed to calculate the time it takes light to reach the earth, in order to define from the actual date of the planets at the time of observation. Science, in fact, happened to be science fiction or, rather, science-prediction science search to understand what you see in the crystal. A science due to the need to predict, as if it were a military will: anticipation to facts that exist, whose existence is likely and corroborated. Computers, without going any further, are what they are because they originated in contexts such as the military, in which the prediction is fundamental: the ballistic calculation or strategy scenarios that require huge computer with lots of variables. The rules of this science-prediction we find everywhere today: in the stock market investment strategies, decisions to be taken by a player in front of the console of a video game, virtual reality where we can simulate a building has not yet been built, or magazine reviews which point out scientific errors in the series Star Trek (how do you know the scientific errors in the design of a spacecraft in the year 4000?).
This has much substance, if they stop a moment to think about it. If science began a race to establish what can happen, then it is really tempting to create a reality based on what is to come. You see that this is very religious, and certainly not by accident. The teleological science we have made, ie there is a function of something future, in a way very similar to the religious model. Science, by showing that there are things possible, demonstrable in the sight glass or screen, but not yet assimilated by the roots break the classical models of reality and fiction, to engage all in a state of probability and simulation, tests of closeness to what you see at the end of the telescope. Those odds certainly end up affecting our own present, as in the fabric of reality to legislate with an eye on that day will come. Legislation is invariably established institutionally and legitimizes the scientific mechanisms for its own predictability and registration.
objetil superject and Leibniz: How see if there are no windows? Deleuze and prostheses
We said that Leibniz spoke of the body like a room without windows, and somehow it was necessary to recreate to be able to communicate. If the body has no windows, no see or see us. The value of credibility, having to represent it may not be verified our script, contained in the four walls of our house sealed, becomes the glue that connects and links. Simulated to reproduce the space before the world is "like a window that looks the same from both sides." The world is in one, because in my window I see the same as those outside. An information space and visual organization. Communications organization serving the multiplicity of different relationships and thus to adapt an agile and quick understanding from outside. Leibniz goes on to say that it considers necessary to create interfaces. However, some baroque said that "the body is a necessity for being" because it is the only strategy to let others know where you are. Leibniz and others adapted the digital binary language. The digital world is representational constructions, facades hired to locate the real things, things that are no longer still. The Coyote could not see the Road Runner, so it was equipped with all the technology Acme possible. The facade of the digital language provides an amazing ability to build these strategies, such capacity, that we ourselves devices strategic, always ready to be in the right place and capture the best image. And to kill once and for all the repulsive Runner. In 1960, Ivan Sutherland presented a doctoral thesis in the area of \u200b\u200bartificial intelligence that showed a new way of interacting with computers, which until then were only alphanumeric combinations, endless strips of perforated tape data or digits in a circular radar screen. Sutherland thought that screens and digital computers could provide a means to familiarize themselves with concepts not perceptible in the physical world, "by placing a window or glass of some sort" the wonderful world of mathematics on a computer. Eight years later, Sutherland established the model "definitive" virtual town or HMD (Head Mounted Display) incorporating information technology. Later, NASA and the U.S. Defense Department expanded these experiments as flight simulators and training to handle tanks and submarines. In autumn 1968, during the sessions of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, held at the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco, Doug Engelbart introduced a new relationship with computers you end up and down revolutionize the computer world. It was actually a new system flight simulation. During the presentation, an electronic projection system provided a high-definition picture, twenty times the size of a person on a large screen. Engelbart stood on a sort of stage with his back to the screen, sitting with his hands in a strange console, bringing in the head a set of headphones and microphones. In the console, a small screen allowed to observe as in the large and keyboard writing was on the center. On the left, a set of five keys he used to enter orders and the right was a kind of box the size of a pack of cigarettes, with buttons on top and connected by a cable to the console. Engelbart moved it on the table with his right hand. It was the mouse or mouse. "Picture yourself in a new type of vehicle with an unlimited scope in time and space", Howard Rheingold has written about Engelbart experiments. "This vehicle is a magical window that lets you choose from a wide range of views as possible and quickly filter a vast field of possibilities, from the microscopic to the galactic, from a particular word on a particular book in a library specific to the summary of an entire field of knowledge (...) The land you see through increased window on your new vehicle is not the normal landscape of plains, trees and oceans, but a landscape of information whose elements are words, numbers, graphics, images, concepts, paragraphs, arguments, relations, formulas, diagrams, etc. The tidal effect at first. In Engelbart's words, 'all our old habits of organizing information have been blown up by exposure to a model system, not pens and printers, but on the manner in which the human mind processes information'. " What if I'm just blind when I leave the room? How may perceive what I have at home and instead not see a damn of what's out? The only possible solution would be to invite outsiders to come home so we can know what they are. But then, assuming the other the same thing happens to me when leaving their houses if they are able to find a way to do so, which is widely doubted, are blind and can not see me. So they do not actually win anything. What should we do then to see our rear-breath smell us and be sure that it is not an exercise in imagination but really that person off the inevitable smell of a meal with garlic? Should we understand When Leibniz says that "this is the best of all possible worlds" that is because they can see and therefore it is possible? That is, it exists because you can see? What is it that you can see if it is not just our own little room with no windows and airy? Or should understand that what is required is "the best of all possible worlds" because we can not see, that which is beyond the wall? Why do all we can do is imagine? In the Renaissance, it was assumed that the windows and walls were transparent occlusive. Another fundamental assumption in the Renaissance linear perspective was that the window was flat. Organize the world so that it can be understood in two dimensions is quite pathetic. But that's not all. Why the hell do we have to think the world the same way as we see, first, second and third planes? asked Leibniz (Leibniz Newton could not stand when he began to think about these things, the end of the whole story is just the roots when the apple hit the floor loudly and all possible levels and layers were to gargle.) I think of the few windows that I have at my disposal. The issue of provision usually leads to think that someone has prepared well. But instead I swear they are there because they are the tickets I have played in the raffle eye. I remember them. I think in the viewfinder of my camera, the viewfinder of my video camera in the event that some had given me a birthday (I always fall plants by the laws of human gravity, that is, forgetting water , twist down prematurely), think about my Mac that does not ask for water, used to drink more voltage, I think the binoculars let me see relatively always in constant battle with my glasses, and think about the black dots swarm in my field of vision and tenacity regularly. The individual consciousness, in themselves, are closed to each other; can only communicate by signs where they translate their inner states, wrote Emile Durkheim.
Reflections on a subject that uses outside your body prosthesis as a way of establishing a direct relationship with the world has caught-and long-minds of intellectuals and artists, whose relationship to reality is defended by a desire to decomposition and recreation and visualize what we are denied the mechanistic logic. The image of a subject (which is considered "natural" to the extent strictly morphology has suddenly given at birth) provided symbiotic device (computer interfaces) or implatandos (prosthesis) takes us to some spectral areas, so atavistic, as far as our certainty or security. The image of the cyborg appears in the focus of debate because we are a reality in full swing and this "supposed" to put in check essential elements of our being. Today, we seem to perceive a blurred reality that consists of infinite objects, all subject to a chaotic law and migration speed, a moving object involves a correlation in how we look, we perceive and how we develop our strategies at the time of capture, define and describe what "gets us" before the eyes. Therefore, in reality, the discourse on the prosthesis has to do directly with the level of representation, because deep down it's how to show what is in motion. And is this perhaps a major reason for this is made particularly intense debate in the field of visual expression, artistic experimentation, how to get things look? Moreover is it really necessary to make things "appear" when things will never be defined as "themselves" but in terms of where they occur or from where we see them appear?
A world view leads to a dizzying vertigo. The urge to capture what which is subject to the speed means that, as observers, we also put in motion, that we are able to design strategies that allow us to play "parity" with what surrounds us. It comes to my head, for example, the movie "Predator." The vision of the alien is equipped to detect movement instantly and symbiotic nature is defined by its willingness to adapt and survive. Deleuze, Whitehead's hand has touched these issues in a very suggestive. He spoke of objetiles (objects as projectiles) and superject or subject prepared and trained to cope with the extreme mobility. To fix the image of a car Formula 1 racing circuit, not enough with a simple camera, we adjust to be able to take a snapshot of the object that is defined and not blurred contours. Similarly, a myopic glasses needed to establish reliable relationships with what he senses in his eyes. You need to "correct" an imbalance, it creates a set of anamorphosis to the Baroque style. The subject, with a fleeting reality, must take action. Basically measures affecting the performance, the means by which UNAE defines the appearance of things, the way defined UNAE himself to them, because if we see the world as a fleeting cloud, hopefully that the world can see us in the same way. So what can exist if a firm voice, speaking of appearances, we do know that we ourselves are apparent? The interfaces were legitimized as placebos to that anguish.
Leibniz modern approach opens the interface to suggest that the body is like a room without windows: a monad dark, and to communicate with the outside world "should have a screen that receives the information: no screen uniform but diversified by folds representing innate knowledge issues. This screen or membrane, which is in tension, elasticity and strength is active and really act (or react) in a manner that accommodates both past folds as new. "
In this screen, a series of signs should be coded so that anyone with knowledge of the code could decrypt. If everything and everyone is related, as we live in a dark room and "assume" (in Leibnizian happiness) that others are under the same conditions, there is need to develop a universal language, a protocol that Leibniz called characteristica Universalis: overall communications space.
"Through this universal language, any information may be recorded systematically abstract symbols with any problems of reasoning could be articulated and resolved. This script could be universally understood by all, each in their own language, and provide the means to communicate everywhere. Included among the signs to the words, letters, figures, chemical, astronomical and Chinese hieroglyphics, musical notes, stenographic figures, arithmetic, algebra and all other figures we use to think instead of things [...] And now we can definitely praise the machine as it deserves, say it will be useful for those who would be involved in calculations, which, as is well known, are the masters of the financial aunt: administrators of the estates of other traders, surveyors, geographers, navigators, astronomers [...] But if we stick to scientific applications, thanks it could be corrected geometric and astronomical tables old and new ones developed with the help of which we could measure all sorts of curves and figures [...] agree to extend all possible Pythagorean main tables, tables of squares, cubes and other powers , and tables of combinations, variations and progressions of all kinds [...] Sure, astronomers do not have to continue running their patience with the calculation [...] because it's not worth losing hours exalted men like slaves in the task of calculating what can be reliably relegate anyone else who uses the machine. "
Leibniz introduced in 1675 the binary language. Everything could write zeros and ones. To infinity. The digital world is a representational construction, a perfect map for tracking and tracing of the real things that are no longer still, because in the calculation of sums so enormous (infinite) the percentage of variables that can exert its influence on the outcome increases proportionally. These variables should be used, according to Leibniz, to sustain the relationships between the elements, because even when they bound at different speeds. It goes at the speed of light and it is urgent a new symbolic order that catches the idea of \u200b\u200bmultiplicity. Einstein dreamed of catching a wave of light. It did not work. The light fled from him. But he found himself in "the center of concentric light bubble," where a normal time, and amazed as a child, he was able to observe their own speed. An interface that changed modern physics: A meeting point for prediction of dimensions that were considered antagonistic.
settled at once Leibniz calculus of limits in mathematics is nothing to find areas of shapes made with curved lines and set accurate differential values, such as variations in speed of a moving body: that is, to be exact, not to settle for approximations. Variables functions should be accurate, since in fact born to be standard and a new world benchmark in the prevailing strategic calculation: "compute! Then have to remove the pen and would find a solution with accuracy all necessarily accept. "
For Leibniz, the Universal feature was an alphabet of human thought, not only of real things: an alphabet to represent all the fundamental concepts of consciousness. Special characters needed to represent complex logical and mathematical calculations to turn link to other major groups. These characters were transitive verbs were. The letter symbols, the letters have no meaning by themselves. In contrast, the proposed new symbols, such as ¶ (integrate) d (result), came to define under his arm, as there were to enable the negotiation between different sets within the Leibnizian differential calculus: derivatives. It also introduced a new special symbol, ≈, to represent the combination of pluralities of somewhat arbitrary terms. The new symbol was used to combine two sets of things into one that contains all the elements of each. The plus sign encourages us to think of a very ordinary, but the circle around it warns that it is not adding up numbers. The symbol ≈ links, relates, not the sum.
In speed, the scientific management of reality has been defined in terms of speed when analyzing the ever-changing situations. Modern research has valued above all the ability to put ourselves in the place of things, placing them in space simulation created for this purpose. From cybernetics to the media born in the twentieth century, the important thing is the performance. Membrane (of) that is projected is the interface, the window to capture more clearly a blurry world and ubiquitous. But also to mark a new frontier of space and time. Leibniz said that "this is great in the future, the future can be true in the past, the distance is expressed in the short term."
