DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: The Human OS

  1. #1
    Robert Hieger attglobal.net Guest

    The Human OS


    I have skimmed this article with not only a feeling of confusion, but with
    great anxiety. I work as a
    computer consultant, myself. Yet, I cannot say that I have seen an article
    more obtuse or more
    reluctant to define its own terms in many months.

    First, we must be crystal clear on what a human OS is. Though I have great
    respect for what computer
    technology is, I also recognize and insist upon capitulation to the fact
    that it is a TECHNOLOGY created
    by HUMANS to make daily dealings more convenient, not to supplant or replace
    the human brain.

    Second, if humans cannot communicate by virtue of their inbread ability to
    relate to one another, it is
    a very sad commentary indeed. A machine can NEVER define these standards.
    To attempt defining a
    protocol that would outline the ins and outs of communication between humans
    and/or communication
    between humans and machine, for that matter, is a pitiful show of hubris,
    in my estimation.

    I repeat, because it bears emphasis in the face of such arrogance -- computer
    technology, for any
    of its pitfalls or current weaknesses, was created by HUMANS, reflecting
    the workings of our brain,
    but NEVER intended to govern its actions.

    A recent news item I saw on television further confirms my suspicion that
    this current trend of thought
    is deeply entrenched in the computer community. Currently in development,
    and probably available
    in the near future, is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The purpose
    of this chip will be
    enabling an individual to contact their computer network without having to
    access any external
    computer device. If this doesn't turn your head, another article in recent
    months spoke of a chip
    that could be inserted in one's wrist and waived over magnetic readers allowing
    purchases at
    department stores, etc., perhaps even entry to subway systems by virtue of
    direct debit. This is not
    convenience. It borders on insanity!

    Perhaps George Orwell's prophecy of Big Brother in the book 1984 was not
    merely an anti-utopian
    vision, but a prediction of what is yet to come in our near future.

    Finally, I must state that this trend in industry promotes a dangerous policy
    of placing a machine's
    observations (if they can be called that) above those of a human. If we were
    talking about a
    machine along the lines of the character Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation,
    then we might
    have something to speak about. But computers on sentient beings. They are
    impliments by which
    we make our lives more convenient. It is we who give them the limited consciousness
    (if one could
    call it that) that they possess, not the other way around.

  2. #2
    Greg La Manna Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    I could not agree with Mr. Hieger's assessment more. This is indeed a forboding
    era we live in. But one that has been long prophesized.

    It no longer surprises me how many people fail to see these types trends
    as indicative of the prophetic writings of Scripture. Namely the book of
    Revelation. This describes Satan's eon-long goal to set up a one-world government
    in which absolute control over every human action (namely "buying and selling"
    without "the mark of the beast" being an impossibility").

    Of course, one mention of "Scripture" and "Satan" and all manner of mocking
    and criticism erupt, classifying the purveyor of the suggestion as a member
    of the "Flat Earth Society" who watched too many Casper cartoons.

    That's okay. The truth shall be made known in time.

    It also no longer surprises me that people will actually accept this kind
    of control over their lives. As Scripture foretells, they will sell their
    souls to the One-World STATE for "convenience" to buy and sell. We witnessed
    such a brainwashing on a national level with Nazi Germany in which (I believe
    a demon-possessed) Hitler--gradually--seduced the German people to DEHUMANIZE
    and DISARM the Jews, gypsies and Christians. Once done, Hitler was able
    to murder at will.

    Here in AmeriKa, we have sold our souls to "political correctness", which
    in the final analysis, is not a shred different from the Hitler brainwashing.
    While 40 years ago in America it would be unthinkable to pull babies--minutes
    from birth--and suck their brains out, today many Americans believe this
    is just fine. Forty years ago we would never have justified murder. Today,
    Americans are on record saying that "yes, the unborn baby is an human being,
    but abortion should still be allowed for 'convenience' of the mother."

    In short, if we can justify murder of our most DISARMED and DEFENSELESS members
    of our human race, we can justify ANYTHING. Even selling control of our
    very minds and wills over to the State via computer software.

    I believe it will happen.


    "Robert Hieger" attglobal.net wrote:
    >
    >I have skimmed this article with not only a feeling of confusion, but with
    >great anxiety. I work as a
    >computer consultant, myself. Yet, I cannot say that I have seen an article
    >more obtuse or more
    >reluctant to define its own terms in many months.
    >
    >First, we must be crystal clear on what a human OS is. Though I have great
    >respect for what computer
    >technology is, I also recognize and insist upon capitulation to the fact
    >that it is a TECHNOLOGY created
    >by HUMANS to make daily dealings more convenient, not to supplant or replace
    >the human brain.
    >
    >Second, if humans cannot communicate by virtue of their inbread ability

    to
    >relate to one another, it is
    >a very sad commentary indeed. A machine can NEVER define these standards.
    >To attempt defining a
    >protocol that would outline the ins and outs of communication between humans
    >and/or communication
    >between humans and machine, for that matter, is a pitiful show of hubris,
    >in my estimation.
    >
    >I repeat, because it bears emphasis in the face of such arrogance -- computer
    >technology, for any
    >of its pitfalls or current weaknesses, was created by HUMANS, reflecting
    >the workings of our brain,
    >but NEVER intended to govern its actions.
    >
    >A recent news item I saw on television further confirms my suspicion that
    >this current trend of thought
    >is deeply entrenched in the computer community. Currently in development,
    >and probably available
    >in the near future, is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The purpose
    >of this chip will be
    >enabling an individual to contact their computer network without having

    to
    >access any external
    >computer device. If this doesn't turn your head, another article in recent
    >months spoke of a chip
    >that could be inserted in one's wrist and waived over magnetic readers allowing
    >purchases at
    >department stores, etc., perhaps even entry to subway systems by virtue

    of
    >direct debit. This is not
    >convenience. It borders on insanity!
    >
    >Perhaps George Orwell's prophecy of Big Brother in the book 1984 was not
    >merely an anti-utopian
    >vision, but a prediction of what is yet to come in our near future.
    >
    >Finally, I must state that this trend in industry promotes a dangerous policy
    >of placing a machine's
    >observations (if they can be called that) above those of a human. If we

    were
    >talking about a
    >machine along the lines of the character Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation,
    >then we might
    >have something to speak about. But computers on sentient beings. They are
    >impliments by which
    >we make our lives more convenient. It is we who give them the limited consciousness
    >(if one could
    >call it that) that they possess, not the other way around.



  3. #3
    Cris Casey Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    I agree with Robert Hieger. The "Human OS" is technobabble taken to new, patently
    absurd heights.

    What's worse is the glimpse of what the authors have concluded after their
    "development" period. There are many excellent texts on how to manage software
    projects, and even more on the ins and outs of interpersonal communication.
    Their list of 6 areas seems to be a muddled conflagration of these concepts,
    with considerable omissions. Give me a break!

    Why devx (normally an intelligent and rational source of useful information)
    would waste the bits on this drivel is unexplainable. Unless of course their
    Human OS crashed ....

    "Robert Hieger" attglobal.net wrote:
    >
    >I have skimmed this article with not only a feeling of confusion, but with
    >great anxiety. I work as a
    >computer consultant, myself. Yet, I cannot say that I have seen an article
    >more obtuse or more
    >reluctant to define its own terms in many months.
    >
    >First, we must be crystal clear on what a human OS is. Though I have great
    >respect for what computer
    >technology is, I also recognize and insist upon capitulation to the fact
    >that it is a TECHNOLOGY created
    >by HUMANS to make daily dealings more convenient, not to supplant or replace
    >the human brain.
    >
    >Second, if humans cannot communicate by virtue of their inbread ability

    to
    >relate to one another, it is
    >a very sad commentary indeed. A machine can NEVER define these standards.
    >To attempt defining a
    >protocol that would outline the ins and outs of communication between humans
    >and/or communication
    >between humans and machine, for that matter, is a pitiful show of hubris,
    >in my estimation.
    >
    >I repeat, because it bears emphasis in the face of such arrogance -- computer
    >technology, for any
    >of its pitfalls or current weaknesses, was created by HUMANS, reflecting
    >the workings of our brain,
    >but NEVER intended to govern its actions.
    >
    >A recent news item I saw on television further confirms my suspicion that
    >this current trend of thought
    >is deeply entrenched in the computer community. Currently in development,
    >and probably available
    >in the near future, is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The purpose
    >of this chip will be
    >enabling an individual to contact their computer network without having

    to
    >access any external
    >computer device. If this doesn't turn your head, another article in recent
    >months spoke of a chip
    >that could be inserted in one's wrist and waived over magnetic readers allowing
    >purchases at
    >department stores, etc., perhaps even entry to subway systems by virtue

    of
    >direct debit. This is not
    >convenience. It borders on insanity!
    >
    >Perhaps George Orwell's prophecy of Big Brother in the book 1984 was not
    >merely an anti-utopian
    >vision, but a prediction of what is yet to come in our near future.
    >
    >Finally, I must state that this trend in industry promotes a dangerous policy
    >of placing a machine's
    >observations (if they can be called that) above those of a human. If we

    were
    >talking about a
    >machine along the lines of the character Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation,
    >then we might
    >have something to speak about. But computers on sentient beings. They are
    >impliments by which
    >we make our lives more convenient. It is we who give them the limited consciousness
    >(if one could
    >call it that) that they possess, not the other way around.



  4. #4
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    I'd like to request that any replies to Mr. La Manna's post, other than
    those that relate specifically to the "Human OS" article, be posted to the
    off.ramp: news://news.devx.com/off.ramp . This area is provided for
    religious/political/philosophical discussions; we'd rather not clutter up
    the technical and editorial feedback groups with such discussions. Thank
    you!
    ---
    Phil Weber
    DevX Newsgroup Admin



  5. #5
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    I agree with Robert's opening statements. I had high hopes for an
    interesting article, but it has left me confused and disappointed.

    I even went to theCore website, and after wasting another 10 minutes to get
    through some Flash before getting to any text, I was disappointed to find
    what looked like a very poor attempt to categorise the communication that
    goes on between humans.

    Presumably the McCarthy's are technologists, and it appears to me they have
    a very "newbie" view of human communication. This stuff is best left to the
    social scientists of this world who, lets face it, are far better at it.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood, and didn't delve deep enough. What I was
    hoping for was some insight in to the sort of modern User Interface that we
    can be hope to build in the not so distant future (talking heads, AI, speech
    recognition, expert systems and all that). But nothing appeared to be
    related to that in the slightest.

    Please... this doesn't have anything to do with the "Future of Software"
    series planned by DevX does it?

    --
    David.


    <Robert Hieger attglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:39f8366d$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I have skimmed this article with not only a feeling of confusion, but with
    > great anxiety. I work as a
    > computer consultant, myself. Yet, I cannot say that I have seen an article
    > more obtuse or more
    > reluctant to define its own terms in many months.
    >
    > First, we must be crystal clear on what a human OS is. Though I have great
    > respect for what computer
    > technology is, I also recognize and insist upon capitulation to the fact
    > that it is a TECHNOLOGY created
    > by HUMANS to make daily dealings more convenient, not to supplant or

    replace
    > the human brain.
    >
    > Second, if humans cannot communicate by virtue of their inbread ability to
    > relate to one another, it is
    > a very sad commentary indeed. A machine can NEVER define these standards.
    > To attempt defining a
    > protocol that would outline the ins and outs of communication between

    humans
    > and/or communication
    > between humans and machine, for that matter, is a pitiful show of hubris,
    > in my estimation.
    >
    > I repeat, because it bears emphasis in the face of such arrogance --

    computer
    > technology, for any
    > of its pitfalls or current weaknesses, was created by HUMANS, reflecting
    > the workings of our brain,
    > but NEVER intended to govern its actions.
    >
    > A recent news item I saw on television further confirms my suspicion that
    > this current trend of thought
    > is deeply entrenched in the computer community. Currently in development,
    > and probably available
    > in the near future, is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The

    purpose
    > of this chip will be
    > enabling an individual to contact their computer network without having to
    > access any external
    > computer device. If this doesn't turn your head, another article in recent
    > months spoke of a chip
    > that could be inserted in one's wrist and waived over magnetic readers

    allowing
    > purchases at
    > department stores, etc., perhaps even entry to subway systems by virtue of
    > direct debit. This is not
    > convenience. It borders on insanity!
    >
    > Perhaps George Orwell's prophecy of Big Brother in the book 1984 was not
    > merely an anti-utopian
    > vision, but a prediction of what is yet to come in our near future.
    >
    > Finally, I must state that this trend in industry promotes a dangerous

    policy
    > of placing a machine's
    > observations (if they can be called that) above those of a human. If we

    were
    > talking about a
    > machine along the lines of the character Data on Star Trek: The Next

    Generation,
    > then we might
    > have something to speak about. But computers on sentient beings. They are
    > impliments by which
    > we make our lives more convenient. It is we who give them the limited

    consciousness
    > (if one could
    > call it that) that they possess, not the other way around.




  6. #6
    Chris Preimesberger Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    "David Bayley" <dbayley@aebacus.com> wrote:
    >I agree with Robert's opening statements. I had high hopes for an
    >interesting article, but it has left me confused and disappointed.
    >
    >I even went to theCore website, and after wasting another 10 minutes to

    get
    >through some Flash before getting to any text, I was disappointed to find
    >what looked like a very poor attempt to categorise the communication that
    >goes on between humans.
    >
    >Presumably the McCarthy's are technologists, and it appears to me they have
    >a very "newbie" view of human communication. This stuff is best left to

    the
    >social scientists of this world who, lets face it, are far better at it.
    >
    >Perhaps I have misunderstood, and didn't delve deep enough. What I was
    >hoping for was some insight in to the sort of modern User Interface that

    we
    >can be hope to build in the not so distant future (talking heads, AI, speech
    >recognition, expert systems and all that). But nothing appeared to be
    >related to that in the slightest.
    >
    >Please... this doesn't have anything to do with the "Future of Software"
    >series planned by DevX does it?
    >
    >--
    >David.
    >

    No. This series of articles is separate from FTP's "The Future of Software"
    edition, which DevX is also hosting. The timing of its introduction is coincidental.

    --Chris Preimesberger, DevX.com


    >
    ><Robert Hieger attglobal.net> wrote in message
    >news:39f8366d$1@news.devx.com...
    >>
    >> I have skimmed this article with not only a feeling of confusion, but

    with
    >> great anxiety. I work as a
    >> computer consultant, myself. Yet, I cannot say that I have seen an article
    >> more obtuse or more
    >> reluctant to define its own terms in many months.
    >>
    >> First, we must be crystal clear on what a human OS is. Though I have great
    >> respect for what computer
    >> technology is, I also recognize and insist upon capitulation to the fact
    >> that it is a TECHNOLOGY created
    >> by HUMANS to make daily dealings more convenient, not to supplant or

    >replace
    >> the human brain.
    >>
    >> Second, if humans cannot communicate by virtue of their inbread ability

    to
    >> relate to one another, it is
    >> a very sad commentary indeed. A machine can NEVER define these standards.
    >> To attempt defining a
    >> protocol that would outline the ins and outs of communication between

    >humans
    >> and/or communication
    >> between humans and machine, for that matter, is a pitiful show of hubris,
    >> in my estimation.
    >>
    >> I repeat, because it bears emphasis in the face of such arrogance --

    >computer
    >> technology, for any
    >> of its pitfalls or current weaknesses, was created by HUMANS, reflecting
    >> the workings of our brain,
    >> but NEVER intended to govern its actions.
    >>
    >> A recent news item I saw on television further confirms my suspicion that
    >> this current trend of thought
    >> is deeply entrenched in the computer community. Currently in development,
    >> and probably available
    >> in the near future, is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The

    >purpose
    >> of this chip will be
    >> enabling an individual to contact their computer network without having

    to
    >> access any external
    >> computer device. If this doesn't turn your head, another article in recent
    >> months spoke of a chip
    >> that could be inserted in one's wrist and waived over magnetic readers

    >allowing
    >> purchases at
    >> department stores, etc., perhaps even entry to subway systems by virtue

    of
    >> direct debit. This is not
    >> convenience. It borders on insanity!
    >>
    >> Perhaps George Orwell's prophecy of Big Brother in the book 1984 was not
    >> merely an anti-utopian
    >> vision, but a prediction of what is yet to come in our near future.
    >>
    >> Finally, I must state that this trend in industry promotes a dangerous

    >policy
    >> of placing a machine's
    >> observations (if they can be called that) above those of a human. If we

    >were
    >> talking about a
    >> machine along the lines of the character Data on Star Trek: The Next

    >Generation,
    >> then we might
    >> have something to speak about. But computers on sentient beings. They

    are
    >> impliments by which
    >> we make our lives more convenient. It is we who give them the limited

    >consciousness
    >> (if one could
    >> call it that) that they possess, not the other way around.

    >
    >



  7. #7
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    Chris,

    > No. This series of articles is separate from FTP's "The Future of

    Software"
    > edition, which DevX is also hosting. The timing of its introduction is

    coincidental.

    Thanks for clarifying... I'm looking forward to the FoS series.

    --
    David.




  8. #8
    Tom Stone Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    Phil,

    It seems to me the original article by the McCarthy's begs for philosophical
    discussion rather than technical. Perhaps this entire discussion is misplaced.

    Respectfully,

    Tom Stone

    "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote:
    >I'd like to request that any replies to Mr. La Manna's post, other than
    >those that relate specifically to the "Human OS" article, be posted to the
    >off.ramp: news://news.devx.com/off.ramp . This area is provided for
    >religious/political/philosophical discussions; we'd rather not clutter up
    >the technical and editorial feedback groups with such discussions. Thank
    >you!
    >---
    >Phil Weber
    >DevX Newsgroup Admin
    >
    >



  9. #9
    Javan Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    I think the McCarthys(?) are getting a bit too carried away with this protocol
    stuff. The way I understand it, protocols were created specifically because
    computers are 'dumb'. That is, without protocols, computers would not be
    able to 'express themselves'. The day when a human being cannot express himself
    clearly without using a 'Human OS' will be a sad day indeed. We will actually
    cease to be human!

    I think the way to create better understanding of each other is not through
    'protocols' but through greater emphasis on the reform of education systems
    to encourage greater inter-personal skills. This can be through varied activities
    like games, dance, drama, etc, instead of the heavy reliance on only the
    academic aspects of education.

    People who have learnt to interact both physically and mentally will have
    the necessary 'protocol' to interact productively in any sphere of life.

  10. #10
    Chris Preimesberger Guest

    Re: The Human OS


    "Tom Stone" <tom.stone@compaq.com> wrote:
    >
    >Phil,
    >
    >It seems to me the original article by the McCarthy's begs for philosophical
    >discussion rather than technical. Perhaps this entire discussion is misplaced.
    >
    >Respectfully,
    >
    >Tom Stone



    No, Tom. This series is going to become very technical very soon.

    --Chris Preimesberger, Devx.com


    >
    >"Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote:
    >>I'd like to request that any replies to Mr. La Manna's post, other than
    >>those that relate specifically to the "Human OS" article, be posted to

    the
    >>off.ramp: news://news.devx.com/off.ramp . This area is provided for
    >>religious/political/philosophical discussions; we'd rather not clutter

    up
    >>the technical and editorial feedback groups with such discussions. Thank
    >>you!
    >>---
    >>Phil Weber
    >>DevX Newsgroup Admin
    >>
    >>

    >



  11. #11
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    Phil,

    Y'all asked for it, the article which sparked this was nothing but new-age
    psycho-babble. Maybe y'all should have a scientific review committee with
    at least me, Jonny, Simon, and Nancy on it.



    ---
    Homie Z

    You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

  12. #12
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    On 1 Nov 2000 08:17:17 -0800, "Chris Preimesberger"
    <cpreimesberger@devx.com> wrote:

    >This series is going to become very technical very soon.


    ROFL! Built on a foundation of what?


    ---
    Homie Z

    You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

  13. #13
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:27:15 +0100, "David Bayley" <dbayley@aebacus.com>
    wrote:

    >Presumably the McCarthy's are technologists

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    You misspelled 'snake-oil salesmen' - hope this helps.



    ---
    Homie Z

    You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

  14. #14
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    Chris,

    Maybe y'all should consider having an advisory committee to filter out
    such bullshit before publication.



    ---
    Homie Z

    You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

  15. #15
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: The Human OS

    On 26 Oct 2000 06:49:33 -0700, "Robert Hieger" attglobal.net wrote:

    >Currently in development, and probably available in the near future,
    >is a chip that can be implanted in one's head. The purpose
    >of this chip will be enabling an individual to contact their computer
    >network without having to access any external computer device.


    Woohoo! I want one!




    ---
    Homie Z

    You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center