Computer scientists have a lot to learn and realize.

For one thing, computers aren’t the center of the universe. What may be an ideal for computer scientists may not be an ideal for normal people. And very often, computer scientists affect normal people because everyone uses computers (or at least, everyone will).

All these computers sit around on our desks, we only use a fraction of their power at any time. Right now, I am typing this blog entry, using less than 1% of my CPU’s power. Theoretically, it could be doing things–helpful things, things that will make my life easier. It could be doing smart analyses of what I’m writing and try to predict what I’m going to do next. It could be some sort of extension of my mind, helping me produce better work. Instead, it sits there idle, useless. Glorified typewriter.

There have been many innovations, but the “humanity” of computers has been lost. We shouldn’t be designing our lives around them… they should be designed around US. The way the human mind works needs to be complimented. I should not change my ways for the computer, except if in changing them it makes my life easier, less complicated, and makes me more powerful as a human being.

These should be enabling devices. They surely have the potential to be enabling devices. But right now, in many ways, they disable us. We are restricted by the rules programmers place on us. We live under a sort of “law of code” which Lawrence Lessig describes in his books. In addition, the gov’t and other groups seek ways to use computers to control people.

Computers need to become more like us, so that they can seem familiar, useful, but at the same time, a whole lot more powerful. What computers have that we don’t have is speed, time (CPU time), and infinite storage. What we have that computers don’t have is the ability to reason about our experiences in very flexible ways. Wrapping a computer’s speed and storage capabilities around our own flexible abilities as conscious beings would mean a very powerful harmony.

Why are we still talking about how to isolate faults, or make device driver subsystems better, when this human element is so sorely needed, and would be so well appreciated?

I’m working on this philosophy paper, and am having a bit of a brain struggle. The paper I read makes a very strong point for a model of consciousness that is computational (functional), so that, for example, it is conceivable that a sufficiently advanced computer (or group of computers) could replace the brain and serve the same role (i.e. I’d still have conscious experiences, etc.)… but this is very hard for me to accept at a “gut-reaction” level. Although it would be very easy for me to write a paper defending Dennett’s claim, I am going to have work through this to figure out what is wrong with it (I am convinced something is wrong with it).

A quote Dennett cited (attributed to Fodor) made me laugh out loud and receive stares in this quiet lounge: “If, in short, there is a community of computers living in my head, there had also better be somebody who is in charge; and, by God, it had better be me.”

I have to re-read, and re-read, and outline, and re-read, and maybe, eventually, write.

Some scary stuff going on in the discussions at Slashdot today over Microsoft’s “Trusted Computing” initiative.

quote (Two Slashdot posters):

---

They [Microsoft] have already made the deals w/ Phoenix to make a MSFT certified BIOS that will enable them to not boot �insecure� OSs [read: Linux]. They are in talks to get the RIAA to support a format to make CDs unreadable in machines other than those running Windows (I presume this would include insecure versions of Windows as well). They are working to get the MPAA to agree to allow them to distribute movie materials via WMP which will likely lead to DVDs �protected� with MSFT products…

Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a “trusted” computer.

Yeah, it’s paranoid, yeah it’s probably [it seems] unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.

---

Read it here. It encourages programmers taking breaks to think about the bigger issues and reduce code bloat.

I understand now why programmers end up so conflicted. They have to work to meet deadlines, but often problems could be solved much more elegantly if there were extra time.

If I ever did run a software development company, one of the rules would be that everyone runs Workrave, a great free tool that forces you to take breaks from your computer every once in awhile. Not only does this reduce your chance of RSI/Carpal Tunnel, but it also provides a way for you to sit back and think about a problem in the abstract, rather than code your way through it.

I know deadlines are a reality. But in a perfect world, programming projects would be done “when they’re done.”