From: "Russell Pearson" <r.pearson-AT-clara.net> Subject: Re: M-TH:Gambling chips Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:46:18 -0000 ---------- > From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> > To: marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU > Subject: Re: M-TH:Gambling chips > Date: 14 March 1998 07:31 > > Carrol writes: > > >Jim Coates, who writes the computer columns for the Chicago Tribune, > >remarked recently that the chip has not been invented that Bill > >Gates cannot slow down with "features." To which Hugh responds: > >Actually, the addition of little needed features that eat up immense > >chunks of memory and thereby demanding faster chips seems to be the > >equivalent in computers of planned obsolescence. > > Time to re-read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In his future world it > was forbidden to introduce any new sport that didn't require more of > everything, more equipment, rules etc, all to keep the wheels turning. Some more thoughts on the subject: For sure any capitalist needs to increase their productivity to maximise the valorisation of their individual capitals. Thus, there's a inherent drive in the process to produce more for less individual labour power. In the case of chips there's an increase in the use-value of the good- more transistors per square millimetre, and thus greater processing power, faster speeds, etc. This, given the system we all live in gets translated into both an alluring promise of the tinsel wrapped wonderland as presented in the latest Intel adverts and a mass of unwanted trivia; _and_ more efficient commodities. For example, most of us are probably using computers working at 10% of their capacity, with the bulk of the facilities on offer never used. And yet this very discussion we are having at the moment would be very labourious indeed if we were all using the same technologies available a mere few years ago. For producers and consumers alike, but for different reasons, one of the annoying aspects of this technology is that unlike say mechanical forms (as represented by hard drives which do degenerate), it does not wear out very quickly. This is coupled however, with continued developments in the hardware and software. The producers need to continue to exchange more goods and will continue to offer newer, 'better' machines and this in turn is paralleled by the software producers ability to produce ever more complex programmes that require larger hard drives to store them, more memory and faster processors. The machines on our desk tops are now far more powerful than the biggest corporate/state machines in use a couple of decades ago. Now since most of us do not need the processing power to number crunch a lunar mission, a great deal of this gets used for the Graphic User Interface (GUI). Consumers want easy to use machines, that present them with nice graphics and that behave themselves. Games players want ever more realistic environments, faster game play and greater interaction. This irks many punters who don't want this: pity the one who has a computer that is perfectly adequate for his or her needs, but who finds that most the software for sale in the high street, will not run on their 3 year old 486 machine. Their machine, although perfectly useable is now obsolescent and they are encouraged to purchase the latest model. Three years down the line the same event is repeated. (NB notwithstanding the cooments above on e-mail, not sure how developments on net technology tie in with this- the net adds another factor in terms of the bandwidth restricting the usefulness of faster modems and the desire for more and more complex, interactive web sites etc). In the corporate world of technology users the drive towards increased productivity becomes a perceived need for faster machines. This it is believed, will keep them ahead of their competitors. However, many studies of the use of IT question whether any gains are actually made- pointing to the effective short life-span of the machines and the time wasted in training staff to use the latest fandango software. Perhaps only the state and the military has a genuine need to develop ever more efficient ways of administering, controlling and killing people. For Baudrillard this creates Virtual wars- in the West war becomes a video game to be consumed, for the Iraqi's it becomes a cruise missile sent into a civilian air raid shelter with lethal accuracy. But OK- most the smart bombs were dumb. The question this all raises is what do we do? I'm reminded of the probably apocryphal tale of the closure of the American patents office in the 1920's on the grounds that all that could be invented had been. If by some revolutionary upheaval we had control of the means to produce IT, would we cease developing chip technology on the grounds that it was perfectly adequate for our needs? Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005