Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Future, past and present.

I'm brewing a post about the future, as I think we are somewhat
entrenched in the past and present.

For the moment the powers that be are waking up to support the object
level security model, until reductionist thought strikes again :) I
guess we'll always have data at rest, data being utilised and the
resulting message passing or flows.

Anyway onwards and upwards.

a) Van Jacobson (Research Fellow at PARC) talks about new paradigms
and security problems from the network up. Jump to 38 minutes in, as
the start is a history lesson, albeit frames the old paradigms and
ensuing discussion extremely well.


Thanks Wade. Props to http://www.blog.wi.id.au/

b) Also, when looking at things like new paradigms for computing.
[Stargate replicators anyone]?

Neil Gershenfeld (MIT Director for Bits and Atoms) The beckoning
promise of personal fabrication.


"We don't need to keep having a digital revolution"

Personal note: I especially love the fact that the Google video is
subtitled and that at the time there was a person signing for the
deaf. We need to cater for all walks of life as per the colour blind
discussions on visualising data. It shouldn't just be about 'survival
of the most adaptable'. Is Future Shock and technology going to
implement an unconscious eugenics program?


N said...

I wish you'd forget eugenics, conscious or otherwise.

N said...

Or, find a word that describes what you mean, but has a less pejorative history?

"Because of its normative goals and historical association with scientific racism, as well as the development of the science of genetics, the western scientific community has mostly disassociated itself from the term "eugenics", although one can find advocates of what is now known as liberal eugenics. Ideological social determinists, some of which have obtained college degrees in fields relevant to eugenics, often describe eugenics as a pseudoscience. Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased invocation of the history of eugenics in discussions of bioethics, most often as a cautionary tale. Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical, though this view has been challenged by such thinkers as Nicholas Agar.[4]"