The article “The Modern History of Computing” was revealing in that when I think of the computer I do not think in terms of analog. The article put forth the idea that analog is continuous vs “broken into units” and I was better able to understand the concept of analog. To further understanding of the concept, I thought of a clock – an analog clock moves in continuous motion, while a digital clock changes as a unit. No more will the concept of analog baffle me. I had heard of the ‘Universal Turing Machine’ as there is a movie called The Imitation Game that is about Alan Turing. I recall watching the movie and seeing this machine with wires and knobs and wondering how on earth this would calculate. Well the continuous circuitry theory explains it by indicating how power moves from one source to another, but disrupting the continuity and rerouting it takes the power to a different location. Anyway, I think the concept is fascinating and can be extrapolated to things other than the computer. Other than that, most of the technicality of this article, as well as Berners-Lee’s proposal for CERN’s central data storage proposal, is really quite over my head. For example, for the non-scientist, conceptualizing the idea that memory can exist in a mercury tube, to be accessed at will, is strikingly phenomenal, and unfathomable. Yet, we see its existence, if not currently, than ancestrally, in most modern technology.
Moving on to the internet, and its presence in our society, it is undoubtedly had the most significant shift in how people get and give information. The article “Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”, shows the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. The direct comparisons show how the terms change to indicate the changes in the capacity of the concept it is managing. For example, “page views” once the litmus test for how far-reaching the website (think “likes”), became monetized by allowing advertisers to earn money by clicking on a link of multiple varieties. Again, the internet web, in its enormity, does not seem to qualify for such a tiny little term such as “platform”. The article itself says “Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core”. Wow! That is hard to imagine but puts it in perspective for me.
Also discussed, is the move from software as a product to a service. Current software updates are delivered in what feels like weekly cycles in a “perpetual beta”. If the consumer of a platform had to physically update the product without the service of the platform, the functionality of the platform would likely be compromised. I know that I often don’t want to do updates that are just sitting on my device waiting to “automatically” load.
The ideal that started with Berners-Lee, as a centralized repertory for his company to access and deposit data so that it would not be lost or undiscoverable, culminated into a complex maze of interconnected devices of all makes and models that continues to extend to the farthest reaches of the earth. As we read in these articles, the digital culture, no longer in its infancy, but a long way from maturity is based in a “web” of change.
Works Cited
McCracken, Harry. “The Web at 25: Revisiting Tim Berners-Lee’s Amazing Proposal.” Accessed 23 Jan 2019. http://time.com/21039/tim-berners-lee-web-proposal-at-25/
O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” 30 Sept 2005, https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Tarantola, Andrew. Photograph of Universal Turing Machine. How to Build Turing’s Universal Machine. Gizmodo, 15 Mar 2012. https://gizmodo.com/how-to-build-turing-s-universal-machine-5891399
“The Modern History of Computing.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 Jan 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-history/
I was also happy to have such a clear explanation of analog vs. digital in that historical overview. the connection between analog/analogy/analogous so much more coherent in my brain, at least.