On 1/9/08, AlgoMantra <algomantra_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. ((machine))
>
> Firstly, livecoding practice so far has mentioned computers
> and machines synonymously, which is fine but the problem I
> see is that 'machine' and 'computer' are two words that
> encompass a world much larger than the microcosm inhabited
> by personal computers, whether it be a Mac/Linux/Windows.
> In this context I find the following text by my friend Wilfried
> Hou Je Bek very provocative:
:-) I find your friend's name very provocative.
> 2. ((Interaction))
>
> This notorious word has gained a lot of currency in the past few decades,
> but to me it's usage remains somewhat bogus. For me interaction is basically
> Newton's Third Law, which guarantees that every time you hit your head
> upon a wall, you will feel a lot of hurt. Now over time you may feel that
> hitting
> a wall with your head may not be such a wise thing to do, and then what
> remains
> in adulthood is the subconscious definition of wall - 'not to be struck with
> head'.
> I think the physics of our world is interactive at every level, and
> therefore
> to say that interaction is a result of automative sensor-response
> computations is
> not very wise.
word meanings are context sensitive.
in the context of machine-human interaction "interactive" implies
human on one side of the interaction. "interactive" systems are
distinguished from "automatic" by their requirement of human input
during operation. say:
cat cv | sed 's/foo/bar/g' > cv.tmp && mv cv.tmp cv
is automatic while
vi cv
:%s/foo/bar/g
:wq
is interactive.
and of course nothing is black and white and objective, you can say
that the following is even more interactive then the previous:
vi cv
jjjjlllll3xibar<ESC>jjjjllllllll3xabar<ESC>
...
(here user "manually" or "visually" searches for 3-letter combinations
that are replaced by 'bar')
--
cheers,
artm
http://lab.v2.nl/
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 08:45:33 GMT