|
|||
|
|||
| THE
HUMANOID CONDITION The Cyborg age is certainly upon us, as indicated in Peter Cochrane’s article [Man and Machine, July/August 1999]. In addition to the medical-aid implants he discussed, we should also consider the possibilities opened up for everyone, through implants that can enhance the abilities of all. I had a silicon chip transponder surgically implanted last year. It was able to open doors for me and switch on lights and caused the computer in my university building to talk to me. After only a couple of days, I fully accepted the implant as part of my body and felt no discomfort. At the University of Reading, our research is now aimed at implants that allow for the exchange of signals between the human nervous system and a computer, and which open up the potential for emotional interaction via the Internet or for thought communication. The field implant technology is rapidly changing and exciting. It will provide us all with a distinctly different future: part human, part machine. —Kevin Warwick
DISTANT THUNDER Two points jumped out at me in the Kay/Postman discussion about learning and technology [The Last Word, July/August 1999]. Both points draw me to the same conclusion—the problem with distance learning is the distance. First, Alan Kay pointed out that people won’t pay his appearance fee for a video copy of even a guaranteed great performance. Neil Postman suggested that this was because people wanted the opportunity to argue, even though, in such a large group, they probably wouldn’t. I think this misses a valuable point, which both men made in their musings on why the lecture method has endured. The simple presence of an authority figure is extremely valuable to an experience. Though learning is meant to transmit information and seed knowledge, the idea of celebrity often plays a role in convincing people that they should attend an event. Isn’t human connection the key to a personal experience, even when it is one to many? Kay’s fee is truly an appearance fee, not a transfer-of-knowledge fee. Look at the way people treat celebrities—movie stars and the like. People flock to see them in person, even when there is little content in the transaction. There is value in being in the same room as someone deemed important. This is one of the things sorely lacking in computerized simulations. The second point concerns the concept of co-presence, which Postman describes as the “power of the social group’s drawing on each other’s energy and strength.” I agree that experiences that peers share, such as attending a concert, are likely to allow the participants in the group to draw on each other’s energy. But teaching involves something more; it depends on the teacher’s ability to overcome people’s resistance to learning. To me, the reason why indirect, or distance, methods of learning fail is that they do nothing to resolve individuals’ resistance to learning. At different times, in different ways, we all exhibit resistance to learning because of personality, content, or timing. A good deal of what a teacher does, maybe without even realizing it, is listening and responding to the resistance—using what Theodore Reik called “listening with the third ear.” The Socratic method of eliciting a dialogue is valuable in that it creates the opportunity for the resistances to be presented and resolved. I am not a teacher but was previously a psychoanalyst and am currently a technology leader. I see that teaching is not so much a process of transferring information as it is unlocking the will to learn. As Kay and Postman pointed out, there are many ways to learn when you are motivated. —Steven A. Marks
GOING NOWHERE FAST “Bandwidth” [The Great Lie, July/August 1999] is just an old term broadcasters use for what they have already been offering. It helps them seem modern and part of the Internet. But talking about bandwidth just reinforces their position as providers and their clients’ position as their customers. I thank David Reed for helping to explain why we should not let the “gift” of bandwidth make us miss the more important need for effective connectivity. —Bob Frankston (Editor’s Note: Frankston is the co-inventor, with Dan Bricklin, of the electronic spreadsheet.)
THE PRICE IS WRONG John Sviokla got it exactly right in “The Price is Wrong” [Digital Strategy, July/August 1999]. Price is a crude measure of needs and desires, and Internet-based technologies make it possible to express those desires in a more fine-grained manner. The question is, Which dimensions will people use to express their desires? The dimensions Sviokla mentions—time, volume, and simple dependencies (such as buying airline stocks based on oil prices)—are important ones. People might also focus on: what the financing options are, whether there is any risk that the transaction won’t be completed; how much wear and tear there is on the object for sale; and whether there are certificates of authenticity and return guarantees. Three barriers stand in the way of achieving such a high level of pricing granularity, however. First, understanding the dimensions that are important to people may be hard. Different market segments may emphasize different dimensions, and specifying the chosen dimensions may not be easy. Second, even if the dimensions can be articulated, the user interface may end up being too complex for use. Finally, obtaining the information to drive the process is not simple. The ability to offer the customer a consistent, objective source of information may make this a difficult idea to implement. But that’s not to say that Sviokla is not right. He is. It’s just that he may not be right everywhere in every market, and it may not be easy to make this idea work in the markets that do try to make this transition. —Dave Robertson
RISKY BUSINESS As Joanne Kelley’s insightful article suggests [Risky Business, July/August 1999], huge cost-saving opportunities are available to companies with aggressive on-line strategies aimed at automating fundamental business processes. Being first with an on-line strategy does not necessarily offer competitive advantages; doing it right does. As the author points out, Prudential and others will not be playing in the same game with Progressive if they can’t fully automate their on-line processes. Self-service needs to be convenient, or it will quickly be viewed as a disservice. And if you want to retain “eyeballs,” you need to close the loop on the business transaction while you have the eyes on you. Furthermore, insurance companies may not be maximizing the benefits of going on-line until they start following the path of securities brokers and pass on their savings to consumers. —Susan Golinko Bard
THE MORE, THE MERRIER There are three basic approaches to branding among the main players on the Internet. Steve Case at America Online creates subset brands that AOL controls and builds. Microsoft buys brands and makes them Microsoft. Yahoo! endorses its partners and their brands—it builds its own brand by acquiring only what it feels is an essential service that needs to be delivered with consistency. So who wins? I hope Yahoo and Elizabeth Collet continue to prosper with their noble strategy. She says [Impact, July/August 1999] that using partnerships well means: forming smaller partnerships initially, realizing that paperwork doesn’t define a good relationship, letting the partnership stay fluid, providing incentives for performance and quality, and staying ready to connect or disconnect the partnership. Her challenges are branding, quality control, and partner selection. She also has to be ready to deal with the loss of content providers that will be bought by or aligned with competitors. But her reasoning is sound. And, the one who can tie the vast Internet together will likely have a whole lot of influence on the future of the electronic world. —Dr. Steven C. Funk
RICH MAN, POOR MAN As Timothy Jenkins points out in his spirited discussion with John Perry Barlow [The Last Word, Spring 1999], the lack of use of the Internet and other digital resources by people in low-income communities has little to do with intelligence or interest. Instead, it is but another symptom of long-standing economic, social, and educational gaps that exist in the U.S. These gaps have widened since the dawn of the Information Age in the 1960s. The transformation that is now being enabled by the Internet will only more profoundly exacerbate these inequalities. Left to its own evolution, the Internet will concentrate wealth, knowledge, and power further in the hands of those who already have it. The result is that those who are less educated, less skilled, and less connected will become further marginalized. The best way to bridge the long-standing gaps is to focus our efforts on young people. They are our future and hold the greatest potential for bringing about meaningful change in communities. Our challenge is to integrate the Internet into the interventions aimed at helping young people, to harness its enormous power to bring people and resources together, and to change the way that we think about addressing these issues. These efforts are aimed not so much at bridging the digital divide but using the tools of the New Economy to address much larger social issues. Instead of concentrating our efforts on wiring our schools and getting new computers in recreation centers, we need to be strengthening the community-based organizations that are working with and supporting children and families in low-income communities. This requires investments in people first and technology second. But it is investments in people where the greatest hope for change lies. —Mario Morino
WEAPON OF MATH DESTRUCTION Reed’s article [Digital Strategy, Spring 1999] interestingly explores and stretches current thinking regarding the numbers potential of the Internet. Numbers are, of course, more seductive the larger they get. And that can be a problem. Businesses count numbers. Both print and broadcast media depend on numbers to set advertising rates. The membership of the U.S. House of Representatives is determined by using numbers. The larger the number, the greater the apparent benefit from the use of the statistic. But not always; there can be penalties for being seduced. For example, at the time of their demise, magazines such as Look and Liberty had very large circulation numbers; the problem was that hardly any of the subscribers were actually reading the magazines. Millions of people watching Seinfeld on television heard about the J. Peterman clothing outlets, yet the company just averted bankruptcy proceedings by selling to another company. The exponential growth and potential growth of the Internet is impressive and undeniable. Yet there are so many people focusing on the numbers that the profitable ways for their use sometimes become obscured. —E. Leonard Rubin The impact that the Internet is having on everything is both obvious and overwhelming. Understanding how this is happening is not so obvious. While I admit that my understanding of “to the nth power” is a little rusty, I certainly got the point in this article. The community model is explosive and is as close to maximizing market efficiency as anyone could have imagined just a few short years ago. I certainly came away from this article a little wiser and a bit worried about keeping my company in the game. —Jeffrey Demgen
|
