Babbage located intelligence in the mind not the attentive crafting mind. Discussion to this with reference to the articles made by Schafer and Zimmerman

Babbage located intelligence in the mind not the attentive crafting mind. Discussion to this with reference to the articles made by Schafer and Zimmerman

.In 18^th century so many inventions made and they are developing till now .life is becoming more mechanical. The understanding of life was more mechanistic by which mind was viewed separated from the body. intelligence is defined by the “mind” because the bodily  labour  can be done by a “machine” and Charles Babbage was one among then who wanted to “substitute” “mind” using a machine. Charles Babbage difference engine has become a water mark in the history of automata. The difference engine is given significance because In other cases, mechanical devices have substituted machines for simpler tools or for bodily labour. But difference engine substitutes mechanical performance for an intellectual process.

In this environment Charles Babbage an English mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and mechanical engineer , popularly known as the 'father of computers', came with a 'calculating engine' which he advertised as 'Mechanized Intelligence'. His second engine the 'Analytical engine' was also an attempt to simulate intelligence. He thought that the introduction of machine would increase accuracy. Babbage's high estimation of the potential intelligence of machines rested on his idea of a mechanical universe. Referring to Zimmerman's article we understand that Babbage had a mechanistic idea of the whole universe, according to him everything is governed by some set of “laws assigned by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind".

Babbage’s definition of intelligence is the combination of memory and foresight. According  to Babbage the owner of an article is the person who designs rather than a person who crafts it. It can be seen when Babbage laid claims to owning the means of production, while his engineer thought he could make more calculating engines if they went into production. In Babbage own words on the 'Calculating engine':

'My right to dispose, as I will, of such inventions cannot be contested; it is more sacred in its nature than any hereditary or acquired property, for they are the absolute creations of my own mind'

Babbage understood intelligence is of the mind , not in the body, in other words owner is he mind of the inventor and not craftspeople. This was extended to the way he understood 'factory', systematize the unintelligent work to make the product of the intelligent.

Babbage gave importance to the result rather than the process by which it is done. The end result was identical if it was a machine or a human who does the work. He equalized the machine and the power needed to the skilled labour. This made the skilled labour to be seen as a equivalent to the machine handled by an unskilled labour(to be given less wage).As I have mentioned above the shift from the multiple “small” scale enterprises to “capitalist” “large” enterprise has forced the “supervising” term to check the discipline made the labour to do work in a “programmed ” fashion without using his “own knowledge”, by this we can say intelligence exists in mind rather than the skillful artisan,because there is no use of his skill as “all the thinking” is done by the inventor or the supervisor and the “skillful” does a work of low significance. According to babbage the owner of a article is who designs it rather than a person who crafts it.

Babbage understandings on intelligence is reflected to all of his works. finally  according to babbage the intelligence is limited to mind of the inventor rather than body’s craftsman.

By

J.santosh kumar

EE09b085.

PERSONALIZED SEARCH-- A RISK!

The "invisible algorithmic editing of the web" via personalized search results, news feeds and other customized content is threatening to limit our exposure to new information and narrow our outlook.
Google is also guilty of tweaking what it shows users based on past online behavior. Two users can receive drastically different Google search results after querying the same term because the search engine monitors 57 signals to tweak and personalize results. In fact, there is no standard Google anymore. This moves us very quickly towards a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see. Because of algorithms that determine what we see online, based on our browsing, reading, and clicking history, we risk being exposed to fewer viewpoints and a limited array of opinions, content sources, and viewpoints.
If we take all of these filters together, all of these algorithms we get can be called a filter bubble. Our filter bubble is our own personal unique universe of information that we live in online. The contents of our filter bubble depend on who we are and what we do. Unfortunately, we don't decide what gets in, and more importantly, we don't actually see what gets edited out.
We really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility. The thing is that the algorithms do not yet have the kind of embedded ethics. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance. We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable, challenging or important.
Smarter, more "concerned" algorithms are necessary to ensure we have a balanced information diet. The best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us some information vegetables and some information dessert as well. Otherwise, we risk consuming too much "fast food" content. Instead of a balanced information diet, we may end up surrounded by information junk food!


MANEKA
BT09B009

Difference between automating and informating

Automating and informating

Automating:

Information systems can be used for automating processes and bussiness functions to enable the organization in executing specific tasks more quickly and accurately with a consistent quality and reduced cost

For example:

In my workplace at Citigroup Global Services ,previously when a new employee would join .We would have to fill various forms and submit to different departments for creating User Ids to provide access to computers,shared drives and other systems.this was a very time consuming and tedious manual job,which was later replaced by an automated online system-Virtual resource.Using this system we could raise a request for ID creation and with just one request all the concerned departments would be automatically notified about the access request.Once the Ids were created the manager of the new employee would be electronically notified,thus completely eliminating the need to fill various documents and personally submitting them to all the departments and then personally collecting the Ids and password from the respective departments.

Informating:

The process of using Information system to not just specific operations ,but also use to learn and improve the day-yo-day activities within that operation is termed as Informating.informating does not limit the use of Information System to just automating a process but also extends the use of Information system in understanding trends,patterns,performance of the operations and hence further improve the processes.Informating helps in unearthing flawed bussiness processes which might have been blindly automated using Information Systems.

Example:

At citigroup Global Services Ltd.,previously whenever we had a technical issue with the computers ,network or softwares ,we used to call a helpline number and as and when any technical engineer would be available he would come and resolve the problem.This was later replaced by a completely automated system-Virtual tech. Employees used to access this system to register the problem that they were facing and this system would automatically assign the issue to a technical engineer depending on his availability.Not only did the system reduce the time takem to register and resolve issues,but also proved beneficial in substantially improving the process.This system helped immensely to comprehend the amount of time an associate took to resolve the issue ,identify recurring issues,categorize the time periods when maximum issues were registered ,decide whether additional engineers were required,etc.Thus ,the system not only helped in automating the process,but also helped in improving it and making it more effective and efficient.

-
Sunaina D
EE09B037

Who is a hacker? Explain what is meant by “the hacker ethic” with the help of a contemporary example.

Hackers. We’ve heard a lot of things about them – some say they are a danger to the computing society and others see them as potentially useful citizens with bright minds. Hackers do what they do either for personal gain or to find and repair flaws in a system. Hackers, themselves, follow what they call the Hacker Ethic. Based on whether the hack is considered legal or illegal, hackers are dubbed “White Hat Hackers” and “Black Hat Hackers” respectively. Adrian Lamo, a present-day hacker, helps us understand better the terms Hacker and Hacker Ethic.
According to Levy's account, sharing was the norm and expected within the non-corporate hacker culture. The principle of sharing stemmed from the atmosphere and resources at MIT. During the early days of computers and programming, the hackers at MIT would develop a program and share it.

If the hack was particularly good, then the program might be posted on a board somewhere near one of the computers. Other programs that could be built upon and improved were saved to tapes and added to a drawer of programs—readily accessible to all the other hackers. At any time, a fellow hacker might reach into the drawer, pick out the program, and begin adding to it or "bumming" it to make it better (bumming refers to the process of making the code more concise so that more can be done in fewer instructions).

In the second generation of hackers, sharing was about sharing with the general public in addition to sharing with other hackers. A particular organization of hackers that was concerned with sharing computers with the general public was a group called Community Memory. This group of hackers and idealists put computers in public places for anyone to use. The first community computer was placed outside of Leopold's Records in Berkeley, California.

Another sharing of resources occurred when Bob Albrecht provided considerable resources for a non-profit organization called People's Computer Company (PCC). PCC opened a computer center where anyone could use the computers there for fifty cents per hour.

This second generation's sharing contributed to the battles of free and open software. In fact, when Bill Gates' version of BASIC for the Altair was shared among the hacker community, Gates claimed to have lost a considerable sum of money because few users paid for the software. As a result, Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists. This letter was published by several computer magazines and newsletters—most notably that of the Homebrew Computer Club where much of the sharing occurred.

Free and open source software is the descendant of the hacker ethics that Levy described. The hackers who hold true to this hacker ethics—especially the Hands-On Imperative—are usually supporters of free software and/or open source software. This is because free and open source software allows hackers to access the code used to create the software to improve or reuse it. In effect the free and open source software movements embody all of the hacker ethics.[citation needed] However, Levy's hacker ethic also has often been quoted out of context and misunderstood to refer to hacking as in breaking into computers, and so many sources incorrectly imply that it is describing the ideals of white-hat hackers. What Levy is talking about, however, does not have anything to do with computer security.


-
Sunaina D
EE09B037

The development and further research on Computers was associated with the perceived need of national security during the Cold War period. Discuss, with contemporary examples some of the risks and responsibilities involved with such justifications.

Cold war intensified the research in sophisticated computer technology and its pervasion into the modern life.

Computerization has entered all the fields of life: science, commerce, consumer goods, weapon system (national security) and has made them inseparable from it.

After the cold war, the US defense system, intelligence agencies and the other national security beureacracies continued the US government support to computer projects like ENIAC which was developed WII. Its main operation was to automate the calculation of ballistic table, which was need for high accuracy of aircraft and artillery system.

On the other hand USSR and UK encouraged computer expertise. By 1950s the USSR computer scientists came up with MEMS, the then fastest computer.

The US Manhattan project and OSRD (Office of Science Research and Development) took many steps to come up with high power computers. MIT was handed over the project to develop a computer thaat could handle SAGE. (IT was part of Windermill project).

Both space and military team came together for advancing computation as both space vehicle and missiles  needed powerful computers to launch, track and control them.

The priorities given to computer technologuy during the cold war continues to have its impact on society and economies of the world.

In the western, private enterprises made advancements in computer. By 1960s Jaapan, Europe, boasted robust domestic computers. Innovations like invisible aircraft were successfully handled by the US government. But with these initiatives came risks also.

One of the risk is , as the the whole system is computerised a hacker sittini in some corner can plant an information bomb or computer virus and destroy the computer network linked to control of weaponry financial transactions and communications. The heart of the military system can be completely destroyed. Through cyber warfare, the terrorists and foreign contries can get hold of politics of a country.

Our responsibilities:
1. Devise a system that is fae away from these threats
2. Develop corrections to the existing system to make secure the from vulneberality to these threats.

Duplicate the system. there shpuld one system ready at time of others failure.

-
Sunaina D
EE09B037

Who is a HACKER???

“…who finds soul in the machine…”

…"trapped" in a quest for control and mastery with the computer as their medium…

“…who have found within the computer a world which they can mould to their desires, a world far less threatening and more rewarding to them than the world of conventional social relations…”

In hacker definition controversy, the term hacker is reclaimed by computer programmers who argue that someone breaking into computers is better called cracker, not making a difference between computer criminals ("black hats") and computer security experts ("white hats"). Some white hat hackers claim that they also deserve the title hacker, and that only black hats should be called crackers.

“The term was developed on the basis of a practical joke and feeling of excitement because the team member would “hack away” at the keyboard hours at a time.”

The combination of motives to seize the system for oneself, to appropriate its power without its permission, to experience a feeling of technically-induced ecstasy, and yet to wish to improve the system and thereby gain its acknowledgment and approval--was common among this curious subculture- hackers.

Their objective, therefore, was not merely to win access to immensely valuable centralised computer systems for themselves, but to make them available to a wider public who were being kept away from  them by corporate greed and government power-grabbing.

Hacker ethic is the generic phrase which describes the values and philosophy that are standard in the hacker community. The Hacker Ethic was a “new way of life, with a philosophy, an ethic and a dream”. The general principles of hacker ethic include:

• Sharing
• Openness
• Decentralization
• Free access to computers
• World Improvement

Noticeably missing from this ethic is respect for personal property, security, and privacy. Hackers let no one and no thing come between them and their pursuit of computing. This leads to conflict between those who follow the hacker ethic and the larger community of users.

A hacker gains status by demonstrating mastery of the system. This was traditionally done by writing clever programs ("hacks") but there is a growing temptation to attract attention by penetrating ("cracking") a system's security, crashing it, infecting it with a computer virus, or accessing supposedly secure information.

Municipal Election - Ontario 2006

Sometimes hacking is done for financial gain, sometimes for political purposes to advance some cause, and sometimes it is done just for good 'ol fashioned mudslinging in a local circumstance.

Toronto Star reporters Peter Edwards and Richard Brennan wrote a story October 24th saying that "York Region police Chief Arnand La Barge is recommending an outside police force investigate how leaked emails were left on the doorstep of Vaughan Mayor Michael Di Biase".

Apparently in the municipal election there is a tough contest between the incumbent mayor, Michael DiBiase and challenger Linda Jackson. It is suggested by journalists Edwards and Brennan that someone hacked the computer of Councillor Linda Jackson and printed out emails between her and a York Region police officer. It is suggested that these emails contain private personal communication between Jackson and this police officer. Someone appears to be trying to give Mayor Di Biase an advantage by providing him with lurid details about some activity being done by his competitor. Jackson went on record as saying "it's an inside job" which suggests that sometimes external controls and carefully monitored security cannot be effective if it is undermined by people that have internal access to a network.   

According to Pfaffenberger, Technology leads a double life, one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them — proceeding behind the backs of their architects to yield unintended consequences and unintended possibilities… technologies rarely fulfil the fantasies of their creators.

But, as Pfaffenberger points out, hackers’ ‘outlaw’  or ‘electronic terrorist’ status may be overdrawn; hackers are often hired by the very companies they have sought to electronically break into; many if not most of them are already on a university-paved road to computer science success (though this ethnic and gender profile is slowly changing, along with the penalties for hacking).

MANEKA    

BT09B009

"What do you understand by the distinction between “automate” and “informate”? How is it helpful in understanding its contemporary role in our work lives?"

Computer based technologies are not neutral; they embody essential characteristics within our factories and offices, and among workers, professionals, and managers.

As information technology is used to reproduce, extend, and improve upon the process of substituting machines for human agency, it simultaneously accomplishes something quite different. The devices that automate by translating information into action also register data about those automated activities, thus generating new streams of information.

For example, scanner devices in supermarkets automate the checkout process and simultaneously generate data that can be used for inventory control, warehousing, scheduling of deliveries, and market analysis. The same systems that make it possible to automate office transactions also create a vast overview of an organization’s operations, with many levels of data coordinated and accessible for a variety of analytical efforts.
Thus, information technology not only produces action but also produces a voice that symbolically renders events, objects, and processes so that they become visible, knowable, and shareable in a new way.
Hence, information technology is characterized by a fundamental duality that has not yet been fully appreciated. On the one hand, the technology can be applied to automating operations – replace human body with technology that enables the same processes to be performed with more continuity and control. On the other, the same technology generates information about the underlying productive and administrative processes though which an organization accomplishes work.

"Activities, events, and objexts are translated into and made visible by information when a technology informates as well as automates."  - Shoshana Zuboff

The informating power of intelligent technology can be seen in the manufacturing environment when robots or sensors are used to translate the three-dimensional production space, typically on the screen of a video display terminal or on a computer printout, in the form of electronic symbols, numbers, letters, and graphics.
In the office environment, the combination of online transaction systems, information systems, and communication systems creates a vast information presence that now includes data formerly stored in people’s heads, in face-to-face conversations, in metal file drawers, and on widely dispersed pieces of paper.
These dual capacities are not oppisites; they are hierarchically integrated. Informating derives from and builds upon automation. Automation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for informating. It is quite possible to proceed with automation without reference to how it will contribute to the technology’s informating potential. When this occurs, informating is experiencing as an unintended consequence of automation.


MANEKA
BT09B009