...as to how you guys wind up assuming that I _approve_ of what’s coming down the pike, in any way.
It is true that it’s sort of unfair to expect a reader to infer the content of a book from its introduction. But I’ve reread this quite a few times, now, and it’s right there on the page (as it were). So I’m a little puzzled as to the response this piece is running into here (and nowhere else).
Y’see, I _agree_ with those of you who think that too often, buzzwords replace critical thought about technology - else why would I worry about “the parade of content-free buzz-prefixes used by the marketers of” same?
I agree with those of you who think what we’re on the verge of trading away is worth far more than the paltry trinkets we’ve been offered in return - short of outright hyperbole, I don’t think there’s a clearer way to say this than to use words like “risk” and “frustration” and “inconvenience.”
Above all, I agree that representation and mediation in everyday life are much thornier and more complicated than a UML diagram can represent: this is precisely what I mean by “the dissonance…the odd dislocations that crop up whenever we follow old maps into a new territory.”
I guess I could understand the hostility you’re bringing to the table if none of that was in there…but it is. I’m not the one trying to sell you this stuff, I’m trying to raise awareness about what’s clearly headed our way, so that individuals and communities can mount appropriate responses. In fact, I think my skepticism about the presumptive “benefits” of everyware is about as pronounced as it could be, without disregarding the actual upside potential.
So Ralph, and Alan, and bill, I have to ask you: is it simply that you didn’t _read_ the piece before sounding off? Because, otherwise, there’s a time-honored expression in English for what it is that you’re doing: we call it shooting the messenger.