Technology of 2022

The IEEE Computer Society released a report this week detailing its predictions for the state of computing technology in 2022. No, the Singularity is not part of it: no downloaded personalities or post-human artificial intelligence. It nonetheless sounds a lot like “the future” should, with wearable, implantable nanotechnology and batteries that hold charges for months on end, just a more comprehensible future, one that doesn’t involve sudden innovative inflationary periods or out-of-the-blue discoveries.

Technology follows a trajectory.

"Predicting the future in the computer industry is even harder and riskier due to dramatic changes in technology and limitless challenges to innovation," the IEEE CS report begins. "Only a small fraction of innovations truly disrupt the state of the art."

"Some [innovations] not practical or cost-effective, some are ahead of their time, and some simply do not have a market," the report continues. "There are numerous examples of superior technologies that were never adopted because others arrived on time or fared better n the market. Therefore this document is only an attempt to better understand where technologies are going."

The report is the product of nine technical leaders within the IEEE Computer Society surveying the current states and progressions of 23 different technologies, including,

3D printing, big data and analytics, open intellectual property movement, massively online open courses, security cross-cutting issues, universal memory, 3D integrated circuits, photonics, cloud computing, computational biology and bioinformatics, device and nanotechnology, sustainability, high-performance computing, the Internet of Things, life sciences, machine learning and intelligent systems, natural user interfaces, networking and inter-connectivity, quantum computing, software-defined networks, multicore, and robotics for medical care.

This authors took the above listed technologies and examined them in light of different drivers and disruptors.

So, what does it all add up to? A key projection of the IEEE report is the “seamless intelligence scenario. Computing devices—from the very small, such as wearable devices and chips embedded under the skin, to the computers inside our mobile devices, laptops, desktops, home servers, TV sets, and refrigerators, to the computing cloud that we reach via the Internet—are interconnected via different communication and networking technologies,” the report explains.

"Together, they form an intelligent mesh," the authors continue, "a computing and communication ecosystem that augments reality with information and intelligence gathered from our fingertips, eyes, ears, and other senses, and even directly interfaced to our brain waves." It’s the internet of things, where we ourselves become a thing.

Predictive Tech

Over at the NY Times, Anna North asks if we can become more creative by using an unusual search engine called Yossarian that purports to help us see things in new ways—ways that go beyond the predictable associations we’re inclined to make when thinking about people, things, ideas, events, etc. What fascinates me about this possibility is that in order for it to be true, prediction needs to be the antidote to predictability. Without inferring where your mind is prone to wandering, neither a person nor an algorithm stands a chance of presenting something to you in a new light.

In everyday life, predictability is associated with consistency. In many cases consistency is a good thing. If your friends are so reliable that you can confidently predict they’ll stay loyal and true, you’re in with a good crowd. If you can predict how long it will take you to drive to work, you can reliably arrive on time without needing to get up earlier than necessary or feeling rushed.

Prediction has become an important feature in information and communication technology. Auto-complete makes searching on Google GOOGL +0.41% such an efficient experience that it can feels like mind-reading. Prediction also enables recommendation engines on services like Amazon and Pandora to determine what we’d like to purchase or listen to. And, prediction makes it possible for fitness trackers to recommend when we should take a nap and Google Now to anticipate the weather we’ll encounter when travelling. Looking towards the future, some are hoping that when the Internet of Things matures, our refrigerators will recognize when we’re running out of groceries and contact stores to replenish our stock before it runs out.

While inferring what we want can save us time, make it easier for us to accomplish goals, and expedite finding things we expect will bring us pleasure, predictive technology also can create problems. Privacy scholars like Ryan Calo note that if marketers can use big data to predict when we’re susceptible to lowering our guard, they can capitalize on our vulnerabilities. A related concern was expressed when Facebook ran it’s infamous emotion contagion experiment. If social media companies can predict, with ever-finer precision, what makes users eager to engage with their platforms, they can design features that will manipulate us accordingly.

On a more fundamental level, Cass Sunstein and others who discuss filter bubbles have expressed concern that algorithms which present us with personalized information customized to fit our expectations of relevance can be bad for democracy: the echo chambers they create can incline us towards embracing narrow—if not extremist—worldviews, eschewing diversity, and favoring conformity.

I’ve recently joined the cadre critics by arguing that there’s a significant cost involved by predictive texting—as exemplified by QuickType, a new feature on Apple AAPL +2.94%’s iOS8 operating system—removing friction from communication by having algorithms guess what we’re likely to say. When your devices do the work of being you, you’re susceptible to becoming a predictable, facsimile of yourself who gives others your second best.

Unison Partner Platform - HP Update

Hewlett-Packard (HP) has enhanced its Unison and demand generation platforms to help partners grow their businesses, the company announced this week. New platform tools include redesigned registration, quoting and pricing processes, additional program management tools and revised lead and opportunity management portals.

The platform restructuring was spurred by partner feedback and a recent Canalys survey, in which partners rated rebates, deal registration and lead generation among the most important aspects of a partner program, according to HP.

“Partners want to work with vendors that make it easy to do business together,” said Heather Murray, vice president, Product Marketing, HP Solutions Group at Tech Data, in a statement. “The HP Unison Platform has helped our partners effectively navigate all aspects of the selling cycle, from developing joint business plans with HP to demand generation and compensation management.”

Among the new platform improvements, HP has redesigned its registration, quoting and pricing processes within the HP Discount Now and HP QuickQuote solutions to help partner close sales opportunities, according to the company. A new MyComp Optimizer tool is also expected to provide partners with a single source to view and monitor payments and simulate performance to optimize compensation, improve predictability and maximize their payments. Additional features in the new platform include enhanced lead and opportunity management, a new market development fund tool, a Co-Marketing Zone and joint business planning processes and tools to support shared growth and collaboration between partners.

HP is rolling out the new tools and resources worldwide and will continue to expand the program to new regions throughout 2015, according to the company. All of the new tools will be available through the updated HP Unison Partner Portal.

IT Bridging Gaps in Education

Information and communication technology (ICT) first made an impact on the life of Fernando Botelho when he was in his late teens. Then, Botelho was a recent high school graduate suffering from increasingly impaired vision. Now, he is the founder of F123, a non-government organization developing low-cost open-source assistive technology for the blind.

 “In high school I was ranked 11th in a class of 43,” Botelho recalls. When he entered college he was given access to assistive technology and it instantly impacted his success, “instead of 11th I was fourth, and instead of a class of 43 it was a freshman class of 904.” The qualitative impact that the right technology can have on someone’s education and life left a lasting impression on Botehlo, “same person, same brain, same level of education, but suddenly you are in the top percent”.

Although Botelho was granted the assistance of ICT’s in education, he does not represent the majority of disabled people. Eighty percent of people with disabilities around the world live in developing countries and even in wealthy economies such as the U.S., many cannot afford the software.

While working for the United Nations Agency in Switzerland, Botelho realized he wanted to take what had created opportunities in his life and make it more financially accessible to others. He addressed the issue of cost by developing an open-source version of this technology.

His organization, F123, has created a software that can be customized to any computer. “We identify free and open-source technologies that are effective and we adapt them for use by the blind in the context of school and work,” explained Botelho. The system includes common software applications, an electronic reader and screen magnifier, educational materials for teachers, and training instructions all costing 2 to 5 percent of the price of a standard e-reader.

Open-source software is technology produced and distributed including its source code. The source code acts as a recipe for the product allowing any person or entity to understand how the software operates and make improvements to it. According to Botelho, “there are clearly monopolistic practices going on in the software world,” and rather than build his product on top of a monopoly, he wants it to be freely accessed.

F123 has had great success in producing a low-cost, trilingual software used by people all over the world.

Tech Inferiority Complex

Whenever Apple launches a new iPhone something interesting happens: Many Android users hang on every word of the unveiling, and quickly take to online forums to denigrate the new Apple device, and let the world know why their Android smartphone is superior. The phenomenon is not limited to Apple vs. Android, or even technology per se, but the inferiority complex and need to lash out against other products seems to be much greater in the world of tech.

Case in point. I recently wrote an article about why the Surface Pro 3 is the laptop that can replace your tablet, and one reader felt compelled to take the opportunity to slam Microsoft. The entire premise of the post was based on the fact that the Surface Pro 3 does a good enough job filling the role of mobile device, that carrying an additional tablet like an iPad is unnecessary.

A reader chimed in to say, “I respectfully disagree. It’s made by [Microsoft] (they need to stay with software). Terrible price/performance ratio. Their proprietary stuff is losing on all fronts. Linux rules on the server side and they rule on the toys. My box costs less than that running several distros of FREE Linux and any one of these OS’s will blow that thing completely out of the water.”

It is immediately apparent that the reader has a seething dislike of Microsoft, and that he is a fan of the Linux operating system. Fair enough. It’s a free country, and he is entitled to his opinion. The part that doesn’t make sense is why he felt the need to share those thoughts in the comments of this particular article. I’m curious why someone who is inherently anti-Microsoft would invest the time to read an article about the Surface Pro 3 in the first place, and Linux simply doesn’t enter the equation at all.

He begins by stating that he respectfully disagrees—assumedly with the premise that the Surface Pro 3 can replace other tablets like the iPad. But, he then goes on to simply rail against Microsoft as a company, and assert that Microsoft should stick to making software—like the Windows operating system for instance—but follows that by claiming that Linux rules.

Another example is the fact that some Android users seem to pay more attention to Apple than Apple fans, and more than they pay to their mobile OS of choice. When Apple announced the features of iOS 8, or unveiled the new iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, these Android users with self-esteem issues rush to online forums and comment threads to spew venom about why Apple sucks, or how Android is superior.

Closure of Canada Science and Technology Museum

The Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa will remain closed for the rest of the year as it deals with the discovery of mould in the building’s south wall.

The museum was forced to close earlier this month after maintenance workers discovered a leak in the roof that had spread to the building’s south wall. Subsequent tests revealed high levels of airborne mould.

The museum said in a statement an initial assessment showed that the work will take at least several weeks to perform and that it won’t reopen before January 2015.

Staff at the museum are being redeployed to other facilities, including the Canada Aviation and Space Museum and the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum.

Museum CEO Alex Benay apologized for the closure in a statement but said the health of the museum workers and customers remain a top priority.

"We want to assure all those who support the Museum we are working with determination towards a complete, permanent solution to this unfortunate issue," said Benay.

Education Technology

Education technology is trendy. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t read an article or have a conversation in which someone makes the familiar argument that “education is the one industry that hasn’t embraced the technologies of the 21st Century.” The world has changed–so the story goes–and while business has adapted, school hasn’t.

It sounds convincing. We should certainly embrace tools and technologies that will help educators become more impactful. But we should do it because it works, not for the sake of modern humanity’s obsession with progress, newness, innovation, and disruption. These buzzwords of the industrial age, let’s remember, paved the road that led to the current landscape of education.

The very notion of education as an industry is problematic. School is about transmitting values and principles from one generation to the next, not skillfully organizing labor toward productivity. Education is the child-rearing activity of civilization. We nurture our young into reflective citizens by teaching them the social and epistemological agreements of an increasingly global collective. Educators need to understand that reading, writing, and arithmetic are primarily just mutually agreed upon languages through which we make meaning out of human experience. These disciplines are essentially useful, but only fashionably industrial. That is to say: the languages themselves have much more longevity than the current applications.

For industry, however, applicability is always prioritized over ideology. Thus, running schools according to the wisdom of the business world is precisely the thought paradigm which led to the high stakes testing procedures that currently plague the United States. We account for learning outcomes as if they were profit margins. We measure the dividends returned on technology and infrastructure investments. We see children as industrial resources evaluated according to their ability to download ‘workplace skills.’ And for some bizarre reason–and despite all evidence to the contrary–we continue to expect that these metrics will somehow correlate with intelligent, ethical, and responsible adult individuals. We’ve chosen the wrong perspective.

Implicitly arguing that the problem is poor implementation of industrialization, education pundits around the world often blame inefficient government infrastructures for preventing schools from embracing the appropriate technologies. But when I look at the multi-national corporate world, I’m thankful that bureaucracy provides a necessary filter–it keeps us from moving too fast. After all, the global economy is itself evidence that the hastiness of the digital revolution has been as tumultuous as it has been beneficial. Popular technologies have, in many cases, increased corporate productivity and profitability at the expense of the humans who operate them.