Rushkoff_ Douglas - Program or Be Programmed. Ten Commands for a Digital Age - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. surrounding Douglas Rushkoff's book Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a. Digital Age. It has been Rushkoff's PDF Study Guide · Turkle, Sherry. VII. SOCIAL. Do Not Sell Your Friends. VIII. FACT. Tell the Truth. IX. OPENNESS. Share, Don't Steal. X. PURPOSE. Program or Be Programmed.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Program or be programmed. Douglas Rushkoff, When human beings acquired language, we learned not just how to listen but how to speak. When we . terney.info: Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age ( ): Douglas Rushkoff, Leland Purvis: Books. Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commandments for a Digital Age Read Online · Download PDF; Save; Cite this Item And as we move into an increasingly digital reality, we must learn not just how to use programs but how tomakethem.
The outputs of the state machine are the control signals. Fixed logic circuits that correspond directly to the Boolean expressions are used to generate the control signals. Hardwired control is faster than micro-programmed control. A controller that uses this approach can operate at high speed.
RISC architecture is based on hardwired control unit Micro-programmed Control Unit — The control signals associated with operations are stored in special memory units inaccessible by the programmer as Control Words. Control signals are generated by a program are similar to machine language programs. Micro-programmed control unit is slower in speed because of the time it takes to fetch microinstructions from the control memory.
Some Important Terms — Control Word : A control word is a word whose individual bits represent various control signals.
Micro-routine : A sequence of control words corresponding to the control sequence of a machine instruction constitutes the micro-routine for that instruction. Micro-instruction : Individual control words in this micro-routine are referred to as microinstructions. Control Store : the micro-routines for all instructions in the instruction set of a computer are stored in a special memory called the Control Store.
Example: If 53 Control signals are present in the processor than 53 bits are required. More than 1 control signal can be enabled at a time. It supports longer control word.
It is used in parallel processing applications. Computers and networks are more than mere tools: They are like living things, themselves. Unlike a rake, a pen, or even a jackhammer, a digital technology is programmed.
This means it comes with instructions not just for its use, but also for itself. And as such technologies come to characterize the future of the way we live and work, the people programming them take on an increasingly important role in shaping our world and how it works.
We are creating a blueprint together—a design for our collective future. The possibilities for social, economic, practical, artistic, and even spiritual progress are tremendous. The operating principles of commerce and culture—from supply and demand to command and control—could conceivably give way to an entirely more engaged, connected, and collaborative mode of participation. Parents who believed their kids would intuitively multitask their way to professional success are now concerned those same kids are losing the ability to focus on any one thing.
The big, unrecognized news here is about a whole lot more than multitasking, pirated MP3s, or superfast computers at the investment houses shortcutting our stock trades. It is that thinking itself is no longer—at least no longer exclusively—a personal activity. But the cybernetic organism, so far, is more like a cybernetic mob than new collective human brain.
The human response, if humanity is going to make this leap along with our networked machines, must be a wholesale reorganization of the way we operate our work, our schools, our lives, and ultimately our nervous systems in this new environment.
It is a construction that has served its role in getting us this far, but must be loosened to include entirely new forms of collective and extra-human activity. Resistance is futile, but so is the abandonment of personal experience scaled to the individual human organism. We are not just a hive mind operating on a plane entirely divorced from individual experience. There is a place for humanity—for you and me—in the new cybernetic order.
The good news is we have undergone such profound shifts before. Language led to shared learning, cumulative experience, and the possibility for progress. The alphabet led to accountability, abstract thinking, monotheism, and contractual law. The printing press and private reading led to a new experience of individuality, a personal relationship to God, the Protestant Reformation, human rights, and the Enlightenment.
With the advent of a new medium, the status quo not only comes under scrutiny; it is revised and rewritten by those who have gained new access to the tools of its creation. Unfortunately, such access is usually limited to small elite.
The Axial Age invention of the twenty-two-letter alphabet did not lead to a society of literate Israelite readers, but a society of hearers, who would gather in the town square to listen to the Torah scroll read to them by a rabbi.
Likewise, the invention of the printing press in the Renaissance led not to a society of writers but one of readers; except for a few cases, access to the presses was reserved, by force, for the use of those already in power. Broadcast radio and television were really just extensions of the printing press: expensive, one-to-many media that promote the mass distribution of the stories and ideas of a small elite at the center. And we do write with them on our websites, blogs, and social networks.
But the underlying capability of the computer era is actually programming—which almost none of us knows how to do. We simply use the programs that have been made for us, and enter our text in the appropriate box on the screen. We teach kids how to use software to write, but not how to write software. This means they have access to the capabilities given to them by others, but not the power to determine the value-creating capabilities of these technologies for themselves.
Like the participants of media revolutions before our own, we have embraced the new technologies and literacies of our age without actually learning how they work and work on us. The people hear while the rabbis read; the people read while those with access to the printing press write; today we write, while our techno-elite programs. As a result, most of society remains one full dimensional leap of awareness and capability behind the few who manage to monopolize access to the real power of any media age.
And this time, the stakes are actually even higher. Before, failing meant surrendering our agency to a new elite. In a digital age, failure could mean relinquishing our nascent collective agency to the machines themselves. The process appears to have already begun.
After all, who or what is really the focus of the digital revolution? Instead of marveling at a person or group who have gained the ability to communicate in a new way, we tend to marvel at the tools through which all this is happening.
Likewise, we aspire less to the connectivity enjoyed by our peers than to the simple possession of the shiny new touchpad devices in their laps. Instead of pursuing new abilities, we fetishize new toys.
Newspapers go online less because they want to than because they think they have to—and with largely disastrous results. Who has time to think about it, anyway? We are not just extending human agency through a new linguistic or communications system.
We are replicating the very function of cognition through external, extra-human mechanisms. These tools are not mere extensions of the will of some individual or group, but tools that have the ability to think and operate other components in the neural network—namely, us. The Torah was not merely a by- product of text, but a code of ethics for dealing with the highly abstracted, text-based society that was to characterize the next two millennia. Only this time, instead of an enduring myth to elevate these ideas to laws, we need to rely on a purpose and on values as real and powerful as the science and logic our machines are using in their own evolutionary ascent.
The strategies we have developed to cope with new mediating technologies in the past will no longer serve us— however similar in shape the computing revolution may appear to previous reckonings with future shock. The industrial age challenged us to rethink the limits of the human body: Where does my body end and the tool begin? The digital age challenges us to rethink the limits of the human mind: What are the boundaries of my cognition?
Every Google search is—at least for most of us—a Hail Mary pass into the datasphere, requesting something from an opaque black box. How does it know what is relevant? How is it making its decisions? And we have too little time to consider the consequences of not knowing everything we might like to about our machines. As our own obsolescence looms, we continue to accept new technologies into our lives with little or no understanding of how these devices work and work on us.
And this is potentially a grave mistake. Or even irreversibly. But those of us cheering for humanity also get unsettled a bit too easily, ourselves.
We are drawn into obsessing over the disconnecting possibilities of technology, serving as little more than an equal and opposite force to those techno-libertarians celebrating the Darwinian wisdom of hive economics. Both extremes of thought and prediction are a symptom of thinking too little rather than too much about all this. They are artifacts of thinking machines that force digital, yes or no, true or false reconciliation of ideas and paradoxes that could formerly be sustained in a less deterministic fashion.
Contemplation itself is devalued. No matter the breadth of its capabilities, the net will not bestow upon humans the fuel or space we need to wrestle with its implications and their meaning. We are aware of the many problems engendered by the digital era. What is called for now is a human response to the evolution of these technologies all around us.
Like they did, we need to codify the changes we are undergoing, and develop a new ethical, behavioral, and business template through which to guide us.
Only this time it must actually work.
We are living through a real shift—one that has already crashed our economy twice, changed the way we educate and entertain ourselves, and altered the very fabric of human relationships.
Yet, so far, we have very little understanding of what is happening to us and how to cope. Who has time to consider much else, and who is going to pay for it? A bias is simply a leaning—a tendency to promote one set of behaviors over another. All media and all technologies have biases. Televisions are biased toward people sitting still in couches and watching. Automobiles are biased toward motion, individuality, and living in the suburbs.
Film photography and its expensive processes were biased toward scarcity, while digital photography is biased toward immediate and widespread distribution. Some cameras even upload photos to websites automatically, turning the click of the shutter into an act of global publishing.
Writing an email is not the same as writing a letter, and sending a message through a social networking service is not the same as writing an email. Digital technologies do not exist in time, at all. By marrying our time- based bodies and minds to technologies that are biased against time altogether, we end up divorcing ourselves from the rhythms, cycles, and continuity on which we depend for coherence. The beauty of the early net was its timelessness.
Conversations took place on bulletin boards over periods of weeks or months. People got onto the Internet by connecting their computers to phone lines, and then dialing in through a modem to a server. All this not only took time, but made going online an intentional act. These discussions took on the quality of playing a chess game by mail. Nothing was rushed.