[-empyre-] continuous vs ubiquitous

[ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com>]

> Wade Roush, in his recent article, Social Machines, in Technology 
> Review,
> calls what is happening ³continuous computing,² as over against 
> ³ubiquitous
> computing² with its implication of invisibility. There¹s really nothing
> invisible about what¹s going on at all.
> In fact today¹s social software boom ³rests on common devices such as 
> mobile
> phones, computers, digital cameras and portable music players ² ­ all 
> quite
> visible.

Interesting point to bring up Helen, especially regarding your comment 
following the one above about the commodification of the social. 
because of this process of commercialization that you point to, i'm 
weary of accepting claims that the use of devices like cell phones 
represents a visible activity in terms of computing. i haven't read 
Roush, so perhaps he explains this, but based on the rhetoric of 
ubiquitous computing proponents, like John Seely Brown, the point of 
such technology is for people to interact with computers without having 
to do the computing, i.e. it becomes "invisible" to them. i can see 
your point that the use of this technology is so visible through the 
devices themselves being present in our social vision, but i think one 
could equally say that they're "invisible" despite their mass - or 
because of it. that's kind of the point of ubiquity, no?
Thinking of ubiquitous computing in terms of it penetrating all aspects 
of life (travel, communication, writing, etc), a magazine is an 
inundated with computing as a mobile phone, in terms of how it was 
produced and distributed. the "invisibility" is descriptive of _how_ 
they're used - most people using IT do so as consumers, not producers 
or even hackers.
i think i may be arguing oranges to apples, but i think your point 
about market values determining the viability of social software 
possibilities is what i'm reacting to. i think you're largely right, 
which is why i take the promise of "invisibility" offered by ubiquitous 
computing seriously. i think the realm of the possible is being largely 
overdetermined by interests that are short sighted and oppressive, and 
ultimately destructive. and i think this is happening by rendering 
things invisible through ubiquity. all while somehow, magically almost, 
managing to maintain the myth of economic and intellectual scarcity.
Thanks for a great month of discussion!
best,
ryan