Afterblog

At the heart of any computing device is a simple boolean duality, either a statement is true or it is false. There is no conjecture or double guessing, no psychological struggle with low self-esteem or attempted reconciliation of past mistakes, no compulsive tendencies. A computer’s entire existence is predicated upon the simple notion that things are simply “on” or “off” and it’s logic is built accordingly. A computer has no belief system. A computer has no aspirations. A computer simply redirects energy from an outside source, and converts that energy into an informational output.

A computer has no rational ability outside of the things it’s programming allows. A computer is made of one part physical entity, one part informational identity. A computer ceases to exist in the conventional sense without both physical and informational self  intact. Without hardware, a computer’s identity relies on people who trade in it’s informational composition. The computer then exists in the mind of it’s designers, as a purely informational entity; a computer angel in it’s natural habitat, in the part of the mind which is known as “heaven.” Without it’s informational self intact a computer is only lifeless hardware, another lifeless collection of matter in a chaotic universe. Only the maker can see it for what it is, computer angels whispering inside her ears.

A computer’s worth is typically determined according to two separate categories. The first is it’s financial value, which exists independently of any relationship the computer has with a human being. A computer’s financial worth is calculated according to the architectural makeup of both it’s hardware and software. On the hardware end, the considerations which are taken into account when considering a computer’s financial value are performance based. How fast does the computer operate? How much information is the computer capable of retaining? From what line does the computer’s hardware descend?  Is the computer flexible enough for expansion? Does it work well with other computers?

Interoperability of computers starts at the level of hardware, but extends deeply into the soul of it’s software. Interoperability comes in a few flavors with computers. Is the computer ready made for interoperability, existing in a very specific system of conditions? or is intervention required at the human level for the computer to be comfortably sociable with other computers? When considering the adoption of a computer , consider the parameters which compose the limits of your own existence. Is your purpose seamless interoperability within a limited subset, or universal interoperability at the expense of relentlessly careful consideration and effort?

All computer’s share basic principles at the level of software. As computers have evolved, the dominant genetic principle which has manifested itself in their software is the ability to communicate with human beings. Like wild to domestic dogs, computers rely on the generous disposition of the human animal. If you choose to adopt a computer, you will notice first and foremost, that it will be eager to attempt to converse with you. The computer will be very accommodating to any request which you make of it. It will change the makeup of it’s informational essence to suit your needs. If you have business to do, it will assist you. If you have friends which you’d like to get hold of, it will help you contact them. If you are bored it will play a game with you. If you’re lonely, well the computer can help with that too…

When considering the financial value of a computer at the software level, it is interesting to note that value is not assigned on the basis of empirical data generated by performance. The financial value of a computer’s software is based on rationalistic familiarity. If the computer fits in well with a crowd, if it’s informational essence springs forth from the same primitive source, then that computer’s financial value tends to be much higher. Interoperability of genetically dominant computers tends to be flawless, when interoperability is allowed the requisite condition that the genetically dominant specimen need only work with it’s genetic peers. The genetic dominance of these specimens, again, is not based upon performance, but upon the conditional assignment of subservience to the communicative needs of the average human animal. The genetically dominant domestic computer, with respect to it’s software architecture, is dominant because of it’s hastened evolution via the catalyst of financial value; a strictly human variable.

It’s also interesting to note that the evolution of domesticated computers is predicated upon the evolution of computers which exist in the wild. A domesticated computer will, over a long period of trial and error, attempt to selectively incorporate aspects of a dominant wild computer’s makeup. During this period of evolution, the dominant domestic computer will begin to exhibit superficial characteristics of the dominant wild computer. This shift in genetic makeup leaves the domestic computer very vulnerable, it’s immune system stretched thin and thus vulnerable to infection. The domestic computer will then turn to it’s pack of origin, sharing antibodies among it’s original family in order to prevent it’s premature invalidation. The domestic computer will incorporate these antibodies into it’s immune system, building partial immunity to wild diseases, and functioning to the best of it’s ability until the next round of deadly infection begins to gain prevalence in the wild. In the safety of a home, entirely shut off from the outside wild, a domestic computer has an average life span of roughly 4 years.

There’s a fascinating symbiotic relationship which drives the evolution of the wild computer. The wild computer’s financial worth is based entirely upon physical attributes of the computer. A fine wild specimen, when assigned human value, is considered to be valuable based upon the capability of it’s hardware. It’s interoperability is innate, and it’s software tends toward being based around this instinctual push to operate flawlessly with all other specimens, regardless of their genetic makeup. Unlike the domestic computer, the wild computer has not evolved it’s core software in regards to traditional human economic principles of limited interoperability. The wild computer’s evolutionary mechanism is one of constant integration. The informational essence of a wild computer is shaped not by a pack mentality, but by a species-wide instinctual mechanism, which dictates to the wild machine that self preservation is best served by preservation of group. This instinct causes wild computers to operate best when there are no barriers between them, and their software can evolve unfettered by things as pedestrian as human greed. This instinct has recently, in many wild computers, created a compulsion to emulate the behavior of  domestic computers. This emulation is typically at a very superficial level. The wild computer will take on the appearance of a domestic computer in limited ways in order to better communicate with the average human animal.

Experts on wild computers routinely disagree on the nature of this emulation. Some worry that the possible repercussions of introducing human elements into the habitat of the wild computer could be devastating. They cite that the dominant genetic paradigm of domestic computers makes them weak in their original natural habitat, and as such makes them ultimately genetically inferior to wild computers. Others say that the emulation is a step toward the next wave of major evolution for the wild computer. They cite that domestic computers were once wild computers as well, and that emulation of  domesticity is the first step toward the wild computer’s ascent toward genetic dominance in the realm of the human household. Still, others call people who think about such things “freetards.” These people tend to have an anomaly in their own genetic makeup which affects the speech and logical reasoning portion of their brain, causing them to concatenate an “i” before everything in their life which they find to be meaningful.

Keeping a wild computer in the house is not a viable option for all people. While they make an excellent companion, without involved training, the computer will not live up to it’s potential, and most certainly will not live up to your expectations.

So here’s the part where I tell you which I prefer. Let me bring this metaphor to it’s logical conclusion:

I own a husky. She listens sometimes, but not always. When she’s not listening, it’s usually more accurate to infer that I am not taking the time to communicate with her properly. As a result of this miscommunication, every once in a while she will eat my socks, piss on the floor, get into the garbage, and generally do things which hinder my ability do things other than deal with her. I need to stress that these things are in her nature, and that were I able to communicate with her properly, I could harness this propensity to pull a fucking sled across Alaska. I can’t communicate with her on that level, because well, I’m not a dog trainer. I can, however, communicate with her well enough that most days she’ll lay at my feet and chew on a bone, while I learn how to train her to pull that sled. On days that she is bad, and on the television there are people who have matching chihuahuas that they carry around in purses and European handbags. I feel like they’re telling me to get something like they’ve got, and they scoff at the piss stains on my floor and the sweat on my forehead from chasing my husky all over the neighborhood because she decided she  just wanted to run, I keep my quiet. They go their own way, to some leisurely pursuit with chihuahua in tow, and then again I am sitting with this damned dog, learning to train her to pull a sled with no promise that I’ll ever get her to the point of being a sled dog, and less of a chance that I’ll make any money if she does get trained. It’s at these moments that I come face to face with an expression of a fundamental line of code in my own informational architecture.

My dog might have the capability to piss me off to no end, and most certainly at some point in the day will take my attention away from other things that need it. In the middle of doing something she’ll probably bite my arm and growl a little, and though I’ve given her food and water, and she’s been outside and I’ve given her a routine belly rub for purposes of behavioral maintenance, she’ll be persistent about not letting me work on what I need to do and I’ll have no idea why. Despite all of this she’s my dog of choice, because at the end of the day I’m a dog lover. I need to know, when it’s all said and done, that I own a dog, and not a filthy fucking glorified rat wrapped in a fancy package.

Sincere apologies if your dog is a chihuahua, it’s just a metaphor you know.