For everyone who works in computers, today is a significant date. It’s the 40th anniversary of the day when Douglas Engelbart, one of the industry’s great visionaries, gave an audience of geeks at the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco their first glimpse of the technological future that we all now inhabit.
In the last few weeks, the mainstream media has been reporting this as the public debut of the computer mouse, which indeed it was. But the truth is that the mouse was really just a sideshow that day. The other innovations Engelbart unveiled included hypertext, object addressing, dynamic file linking, and shared-screen collaboration involving two people at different sites communicating over a network using audio and video. Engelbart was speaking in San Francisco but he was showing, via a video link, what was happening on the computers in his lab 64km away. And in those days, that was a very big deal.
It was, as one attendee, Steven Levy, wrote: “The mother of all demonstrations ... The audience stared into the maw of cyberspace. Engelbart, with a no-hands mike, talked them through it, a calming voice from Mission Control ... The coup de grace came when control of the system was passed, like some digital football, to the Augmentation team at the Stanford Research Institute, 40 miles [64km] down the peninsula. Amazingly, nothing went wrong. Not only was the future explained, it was there, as Engelbart piloted through cyberspace at hyperspeed.”
This was 1968. Bill Gates was 12; Steve Jobs was 13.
The computer mouse was a key element in the icon-based interface that we now take for granted, and it was a great success in its day (though Engelbart did not make a cent from it). Last week, for example, Logitech, a leading computer accessories manufacturer, announced that it had shipped its billionth mouse. “It’s rare in human history that a billionth of anything has been shipped by one company,” Logitech’s general manager Rory Dooley told the BBC. “Look at any other industry and it has never happened.”
Up to a point, Mr Dooley. What about paperclips, Bic pens and Faber-Castell pencils, to name just three? But it may be that the mouse has had its day. It’s not much use with an iPhone, and no good at all when it comes to controlling a video wall. The industry is moving towards new interfaces controlled by touch, gestures, voice and maybe even eye movements. In 40 years, Logitech’s latest gesture-based MX Air Mouse will doubtless look as quaint as Engelbart’s wood-encased wheel-mouse does today.
Not that he will give a damn. Engelbart has always viewed technology as a means to an end, not an end in itself. The vision that has driven him since he was a radar technician in the US army in World War II is the idea that computers offer a way of augmenting human intelligence — power-steering for the mind. That’s why his Stanford lab was called the “Augmentation Lab.” He and his team created the mouse-driven interface to make computers easier and more intuitive to use.
In that, at least, they were partially successful. Computers are easier to use today than they were four decades ago. But not much. Most of the world still uses Microsoft Windows — an interface that requires users to press “Start” in order to switch off their computers. And not only do “documents” appear on their virtual “desktops” — so too does the trash can. No wonder technophobes think that computer enthusiasts are weird. They are.
But if progress on making computers easier to use has been limited, we have made even less headway on Engelbart’s goal of using them to augment human intelligence. And such progress as has been made comes not from the software that runs on PCs but from the fact that we have found a way of enabling them — and therefore their users — to communicate. In that sense, Wikipedia is closer to an embodiment of “augmentation” than any piece of software ever written. And Google can be seen as a memory prosthesis for humanity — or at least for that part of it that has access to the network.
This morning, Engelbart and his wife will kick off a conference at the San Jose Tech Museum of Innovation to mark the 40th anniversary of his landmark San Francisco presentation. The subject is “collective intelligence.” He’s a famously prickly character, so my guess is that his reaction will be to observe, as Gandhi famously did when asked what he thought of Western civilization: “That would be a good idea.”
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50