Posts Tagged ‘technology’

« Older Entries

The Bible in a Technological Age by Bobby Gruenwald

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

Coming off an extended holiday weekend (for those of us in the USA), its great to have a video like this one from Bobby Gruenwald (LifeChurch.TV) at Q to help reset our perceptions towards the interesection of faith and technology and what our response to life and environment (context) can look around it.

Note: I’ll embed this in when I’m able to get the direct link to the video; Q doesn’t give me a direct URL to embed here.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Future Trends | No Comments »

Technology as the (C)reator’s Material

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Came across this article recently which chose to look at technology as something different than simply the capacity of it’s end-parts. Here’s a snippet:

…We understand materials not by reading about them, or assuming what they can do, but by exploring them, playing with them, sketching with them. Ideally, that sketching happens in the final material, but perhaps, like a sculptor sketching on paper, it happens in abstractions such as paper-prototyping. What matters is that you find a way. Sketching is not just about building towards a final work; it’s about building familiarity with a medium itself, working it into one’s practice.

As creators, we must feel our materials – even if we are not the ones using them in the end.

The sculpture analogy is again useful. For centuries, sculptors have worked with the aid of others in their studios and workshops, to produce large works. But despite drawing on the expertise of others, they must be skilled in their chosen mediums themselves…

Read the entire article at Infovore.

Tech isn’t just the hardware, software, or services, but the process and behaviors that we take into those elements. Can mobile, when it intersects with faith, derive a different or more God-affirming activity because it mimic God’s creative intents?

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Devices and Software | No Comments »

“I’m not a…” Syndrome

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

There’s a phrase that I’ve come to hate as I’ve ministered within the Church.  It’s a phrase that, more than any other, tells me, “Don’t try to teach me anything – I’m perfectly happy where I am, thanks.”

The phrase is, “I’m not much of a techie.”

As I’ve become known as “the computer guy” in ABCNJ I hear a variation of that phrase just about every time I’m introduced to someone.  “Oh, you’re the computer guy?  I’m afraid I’m not much of a techie.”  Some people feel an overwhelming need to repeat the phrase over and over and over again.  As if, should the phrase not be repeated, I might forget.

Typically, what people mean when the utter the dreaded, “I’m not a techie” is, “I don’t know what buttons to push, so don’t bother telling me any of the value this stuff might have for me.”  It is, essentially, a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of change and growth.  Why do I know this?  Because I do it for other things – any time I say, “I’m not much of a…” I create the same effect.  Bad me.

Look, I honestly don’t want everyone to be a “techie” (especially since it seems that only non-”techies” ever use that nomenclature).  Everyone does not need to be a geek because it’s not everyone’s calling.  I don’t expect people to understand how to manipulate a database, or change permissions from a command line, or write a shell script, or even have a clue what a regex is.  To me, geek-tasks like that are what people are afraid of – the “magic” which happens below the levels they are able to access.  Fear of that “magic,” however, causes them to settle in several levels above where they are actually able to access (lest the “magic” do them some harm if they came to close).  It’s easier to keep away from such dangerous stuff than it is to go as deep as you are able.

So I hear the phrase, “I’m not a techie,” and know that in the future I may get a call from them to fix a pdf in which everything has been aligned by spaces or to clean up a document where all the text suddenly moved over because they accidentally hit the right-justify button and were too frightened to click (touch?) it again.  People are very appreciative of my ability to manipulate the arcane forces of technology on their behalf, but in the end hearing that phrase just makes me feel lonely.

Here’s the thing.  To communicate in this world people need, at the very least, a basic level of technological-savvy.   This does not mean that people need to know what button to push in any given situation.  It does mean, however, they learn to press buttons on their computers and not be utterly terrified while doing it.  We can’t afford the panic that the “I’m not a techie” attitude grants us permission to have.  Why?  First, because it’s completely silly for people who are normally competent and capable of thought to lose their heads when a text message comes to their phone.  Second, because that panic shouts to the world in which we live, “I have no idea how to communicate with you!”  Third, because the tools we have at our disposal require wisdom to use well – and panic and wisdom to not compliment each other. These three reasons, when combined, tell us that technological panic doesn’t just make our witness irrelevant to people, it makes it non-existent.

So, if you suffer from “I’m not a techie” syndrome, I make you this promise.  I know how easy it is to succumb to it’s effect, and I can honestly say I’ll do my very best to avoid the “I’m not a…” syndrome myself. I just ask for a similar effort from you.

Originally posted at Painfully Hopeful; image via Life is Full of Interfaces.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Devices and Software | No Comments »

Slowly Replacing Conventional PCs

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Brighthand on iPad and N8 #2 - Share on OviThis past weekend, I got a chance to sit with friends and family, and entertained the usual question of “what device(s) am I carrying around?” This question is one part normal for how I’ve been, but in another space gives me some impressions of how computing technologies are making their ways around the lives of others.

One of the more common sentiments heard this weekend was this realization that conventional PCs are being replaced by one or more different types of computing devices. For example, one friend has recently run into issues with his home router, and himself had been using a Palm Pre Plus to get his email and communicate with people. He’d gotten tired of his wife asking for his mobile for email/games/browsing, and she soon also adapted the use of a Palm Pre Plus. Now, their laptop sits mostly unused, and they manage most of their digital lives on smartphones.

Another friend was looking at the iPad as a potential netbook/laptop replacement, but in our conversations, realized that their actual computer use didn’t need something to change so drastically. They wanted the flexibility of a tablet, but only for occasional reading sessions. Usually, they were out and about and a mobile that could connect to Wi-Fi was a better proposition for them. I brought up the option of the iPod Touch and various ebook readers such as the Kindle and NookColor which are lower priced than the iPad, and offer closer to how they wanted to use these devices.

Essentially, what I’m seeing is that the PC as a traditional platform (keyboard, monitor, desk, and siloed from other people), is falling away as the primary definition. For many, computing is only as relevant as the information that they need at that point. And whether this is directions, books, or music, the definition of computing is less about what numbers and data you are crunching, and more about access.

I know that for me, my paradigm shifted a long time ago. Now seeing others coming to that same realization that computing is defined by them – and then the technology – is pretty neat, and offers lessons towards other aspects of computing which might also end up being redefined.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Devices and Software | No Comments »

Google Wave and Seeing Life Differently

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

Some days ago, that day with the conversations, one of the more beautiful points of reflection was pointed this direction:

(paraphrased) When you only know someone over a virtual line (web, phone, etc.), there’s a tendency to create a perception of that person which may or may not closely align itself to reality. This imaginative view gets called into question when those virtual lines are broached in a face-to-face or real-time meeting. Many times, the relationships cannot stand up to the truth of the real person versus the imagination. The challenge in these times, especially in the context of faith and technology, is how to cultivate genuine relational events virtually, while minimizing the impact of our imaginations to create a view of a person or group that’s just not realistic.

To that point, I’ve found the recent conversations around the shutting down of Google Wave to be interesting, and at best revealing.

Google Wave was developed as a different look at modern communications. It asked the question “what would email look like if it were invented today?” OF course, we don’t think too deeply of such a question because of how much email has ingrained itself into our modern lives. And certainly, we see the effects of email in everything from MMS to IM to RSS. It’s held belief (by some) that trying to reinvent email, or the behaviors and contexts around email, is too great to surmount.

We can remark that Google Wave almost seemed destined to fail. It acted like an email inbox on caffinated search, positioned itself as a real-time collaborative wiki engine, had very raw abilities to be customized to users, alert schemes, and workflows, and had a unique ability to be louder than many blogs would like to be. Also, browser requirements, and an unfamiliar back-end made getting up to speed very difficult (mobile or otherwise). In effect, Google Wave reached very far outside of the behaviors and silos that we are used to, asked a different question, and proposed what communication/documents could look like if done differently.

The answer has been pretty clear for but a few unique usages. Google Wave tried to be too many things all at once, and never made itself distinctive enough to some of the core communication issues that still plague most of us inside of email, IM, wikis, and blogging contexts – namely that none of our information connects seamlessly enough given the abilities that our devices, federated services, or social entries do currently espouse. In looking at communication silos differently, Google Wave reached towards asking people to change their perspective on how they use and consume information. And was unsuccessful in getting enough users or specific niches to adjust that viewpoint.

The reality didn’t match the imagination that was sparked when it was announced.

Before Wave could be used by anyone, it went through a long courting process – first some developers, then a series of groups of 1000, and then everyone. During this time bugs were addressed, use cases were explored, and in general, people began asking the question, “what is Wave for?” The last question made it clear, that despite the glamor of discovery and exploration, people still needed a relevant point to stick to in order to see the benefit(s) of Wave.

There’s one side of technical adoption and cultural change which says that “technology is only relevant when it is personal.” And this is certainly true on the side of those creating and marketing these tools. The other side of this is that any innovation worth creating will always cause people to ask themselves personally if they want to see life differently. To create something is by nature an attempt to say that there’s something different here that should be considered. If done right, whether that invention was accepted or not, relevancy and maturity changes the relation of that person to the technology.

So back to this point about perspective and imagination. The communication layers that were primary to communication in relationships have changed significantly in the past 15 years (speaking on a global and socially mainstream level). Mobile devices, websites, social graphs, location-based services, etc., have added to the layers that we’ve traditionally used (phone calls, postcards, hobby groups, etc.). And in some cases, these more digital layers have completely displaced the analog ones that we might have grown up with. Even more to the point, current generations of communities never knew analog communication tools and behaviors, and therefore will only have a digital frame of reference. It’s enough to imagine that communication between groups is profoundly different and can never be reconciled to something more true.

With Wave, Google took on the perspective that its possible that we are missing the benefits of our interactions with one another because of the nature of our communication tools, and the behaviors that we’ve created around them (and even in shutting down Wave there was a parting shot towards technical understanding and advancement). They choose to take an alternate view, and try to convince others that its profitable to them to also see life in a different light. Unfortunately, the different light didn’t look as pleasant as the imagination. And so the service was shut down, with the lessons learned propagated into other Google products.

In these times, imagination will cause us to take steps (of faith) that might not work out. We’d be wrong though to not take on those opportunities towards looking at life differently. For while it may very well be that we’d fail at trying to convince others, the lessons we’d learn would have impact in other areas of our lives (and possibly even the lives of others), creating the grounds for a second kind of wave – the one where genuine relationships walk alongside the technology, and create the winds for a new batch of imaginations and applications.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Communication, Devices and Software | 2 Comments »

Implications of Information, Sharing, and Obligations

Friday, June 18th, 2010

As I write this, I’m in the mist of an IM session with a friend who found her personal information on a website that she never published it to. As a fellow business owner, I could understand her angst towards such info being out there – especially in light of information theft and personal security concerns.

But, one of the sticky points centered around the implications of the sharing culture that we are firmly in the mist of. Specifically, she remarked about how people seem to take no thought to the implications of sharing content, or even their obligations to friends and family when sharing content that contains them. In light of this’s site’s focus around mobile devices, and what they do enable, its also appropriate to look at mobile in these contexts.

Implications of Sharing Content
Many people visit websites and freely share content without clearly understanding what could be done with the information (or the metadata around that information). In some cases, this is because we took the easy way out and “just clicked OK” instead of reading the terms of service. Other times, it because we simply just don’t understand the technology enough to know that there is a positive and negative implication to sharing content.

What are some of these implications? Here are a few based on that conversation that sparked this topic:

  • Greater visibility into personal life
  • Visibility into personal relationships
  • Disclosure of private opinion
  • Disclosure of private (to a company or organization) information

Yes, usually speaking, we know about these implications, but we share anyways because its one part the culture, and another part a value assessment (the positive implications outweigh the negative).

But, what happens when those implications turn negative (for example, Facebook and LinkedIn changes their terms of service for their benefit but exposes or curtails your previously held positive value)? Do the implications matter anew, or do we roll with the punches, not taking personal responsibility for the information exchange we have equal stake in?

Obligations to Friends and Family
There’s another side of this managing and sharing of information online that we need to consider before even logging or sharing it – that is, the opinions of friends and family. The same friend referenced above spoke about a family member who posted pictures of her on Facebook, but she wasn’t on Facebook nor gave permission for those pictures to be posted. By law, she would be able to request that the pictures be removed; however, by the nature of the Facebook service, the only way she’d know that pictures of her were published is if someone inside of the service network told her.

In effect, the family member didn’t observe solid manners when posting those pictures by asking for permission first. Yes, its usually implied permission that we take (note: not “give”) when posting pictures of someone online. But, if we are not able to execute their right to change what is shared about them, then we effectively have denied them their rightful voice.

Enter Mobile, and Several More Questions Than Answers
This is where it gets extremely hard to manage mobile. On one end, we can do the right thing by taking pictures or noting content of others, making public only those items which they allow. But, on a mobile device, this is essentially letting someone into your “personal space” and then making the call to go forward or not.

Technically speaking, mobile devices, platforms, and networks don’t allow us the luxury of knowing when someone has taken a picture or written something about us. That would require a level of monitoring and filtering that current networks can’t take, current devices can’t stayed powered for, and current governments just won’t broach (usually).

Within the mobile industry, it is well understood that there’s a ton of money and influence to be made off of understanding and managing the content and the metadata around the content of what is produced on a mobile device. As a part of those topics we talked about in terms of where the Body needs to beef up within the next 10 years, information analytics and intelligence is pretty major. We need to not just understand this as an industry or organization though; there’s got to be a personal understanding towards what exactly we have in our hands towards all the information being generated and tracked. And that means not only to read the terms of service, but to know the law in regards to what to do if your privacy has been compromised.

Scriptural Response
Spiritually, the call is to take the luxury of sharing and connecting as a part of our obligation to “live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18) by putting their perspectives in front of our own (Phillipians 2:3-5). We view our freedom to share in light of the fact that others have something to gain and lose if we aren’t careful of the rules (laws) and opportunities that others can take advantage of. And when presented with a situation that doesn’t work to our advantage, we respectfully, and rightly, take it up with those with the power to change or influence change so that at the end of the day, whatever we shared has given someone the ability to grow in Christ. And if someone becomes offended in the mist of this, we handle this not with the mindset to slander or take revenge, but to extend the same grace to them as we’ve been extended – understanding that the implications of sowing love, joy, grace, peace, and mercy, is a bumper crop of unity (John 17:20-26).

Things You Can Do
If you’ve been the victim of personal information being posted online, or identity theft, your service provider(s), local and national governments, and in some cases even internet service providers/domain hosting companies have policies in place to help rectify the issue. Unfortunately, its much harder to undo the damage than it is to inflict it; but in your communications, be sure to alert those in public office your concerns as it is most likely on their agenda as well (many influential voice can help give rise to a change in this behavior).

Don’t put information online that you don’t want to come back and haunt you later. Do your best to own the information that you do put online (for example: own the servers and/or the software that creates the content, have the ability to leave the service and take your data with you (see The Data Portability Project,), and just use good sense.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Communication | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries