Logic’s End

When one thinks about the definition of a Senator as an elected representative of the people of a State, despite the original Constitutional definition, the distinction implies a serious responsibility and commitment to those people. To be even more specific: the people who elected said Senator. Nonetheless, yesterday marked another step toward a governing tribunal with fewer ties to the people.

In the modern day Congress, the Senate in particular, incumbency protection is the number one goal for those aspiring to become career congressmen. In large part, that protection is achieved through constituent services. If you answer enough angry emails and letters, and maybe if you build a bridge in your home State or town, you’ve done your part. The vast majority of uninformed voters seem to be satisfied with money and lip service so long as their congressman doesn’t do anything crazy.

Thus, the problem of increasingly poor representation is equally the fault of the congressmen and the people he or she represents. After all, it is the people’s civic duty to be informed, involved, and to vote in their political process for the representatives that best match their interests, not just their wallets. So how then has Senator Arlen Specter’s party switch run afoul of the political principles and processes of the nation?

Specter claims to have switched because of a re-alignment of his political philosophy, citing such things as a loss of Republican control in the Congress and the Presidency and some 200,000 Republican voters in Pennsylvania who supposedly voted Democrat in the Presidential election. Even if that were the truth, in my opinion Specter should resign and run again for re-election as a Democrat if he feels so strongly about his new found principles. 

 See what Specter fails to mention, whether he realizes it or not, is that votes in a Presidential election are not the same as votes in a Senatorial election. In 2008 there was no Senate race in Pennsylvania. People who switch parties to vote Democrat in a Presidential race might well be the same people who voted along party lines as Republicans in Senate races years before and might well be likely to vote that way again. Such is the theory of ordered constituencies.

A Senator who switches parties mid-term is essentially saying to voters that their votes in the last Senate election that he or she ran in do not matter. At best the Senator is saying that he knows better than the people where their principles truly lie. Perhaps, however, the Senator is suggesting that the people’s principles and beliefs when they voted for him are trumped by his own. In any case, it doesn’t matter where the Senator bases his decision. It doesn’t matter if the switch from Democrat to Republican or Republican to Democrat. The Senator no longer represents the people that elected him, and he should, in good faith and service, resign.

Specter shows no signs of pursuing the route of resignation. Moreover, few are willing to call for his resignation and replacement. What Specter did was identify a shift in power in a Democratic direction for Pennsylvania and surrounding States. In an underhanded move to secure his career Senatorial seat, he has switched parties mid-term. With any luck, the voters can prove him wrong, whether in the Democratic primary or the State election, and show him that in 2010 he’s no longer fit to represent and serve the best interests the people of Pennsylvania.

As with all things in life, sometimes we learn the most when we fail. Early success can be a harbinger of bad design. Imagine if the first generation cars America made had never been involved in crashes. Would we have begun crash testing and safety design or just assumed that our vehicles wouldn’t crash? Think about how deadly crashes would be on modern automobiles if we hadn’t failed so many times to date.

When we’re talking about modern products and services, the question becomes: how do we design for failure before our products are ever released to the public? It’s no longer sufficient to rely on the user to fail in order for the manufacturer to learn. All of the testing the airline industry puts into the components of a new jet is a testament to good product development, designing for failure under the worst conceivable conditions.

Computer software should be no different. Too often today, the phrase ”beta testing” is synonymous with “product marketing”. This plays a significant role in forcing underdeveloped prototype products into the hands of unsuspecting users too quickly, and I believe it’s what lies at the heart of our most detested software.

With the proper amount of requirements, documentation, and planning the time required for beta testing can be reduced. Nonetheless, even the designs of Leonardo Davinci and a software programmer with the foresight of Sun Tzu couldn’t possibly predict how every single user is going to interact with today’s complex software applications. Testing software will always be a necessary part of development.

So if testing is so critical, how should it be carried out? I would argue that it ought to be a controlled, continuous, and iterative process. You cannot have a handful of your test users sit down at any given time, test for an hour, write down their suggestions, and leave. Nor can you test with all of your users at once, as that would overwhelm your team’s capacity to evaluate and implement their suggestions.

If the US Constitution were drafted and ratified with the involvement of every member of every state government sitting in a giant meeting hall, we’d likely have no Constitution and no country at all. Moreover, if it were created behind closed doors solely by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, we’d have arrived at the same result. Planned, iterative, and controlled development is a reasonable and prudent process.

Therefore, my software testing solution at present is to bring in groups of users and continually increase the size of the test group as changes are implemented and testing is carried out. Representatives from your group of critical stakeholders, the people who have the most to lose from a poorly designed application, are the first to test. After that, I increase the size of that group and add in a few non-critical users. The third and final phase is to open the door to all users for testing with the most refined and development prototype of the software at hand.

It’s important to note that users need to be encouraged to actively participate. Often they tend to wait until the last testing date and submit everything at once. Also, prior to opening the system up to all users, it’s beneficial to get the word out about your product. Much like the Federalist Papers did for the Constitution, you have to create an argument for your product and explain it to the least familiar and most opposed of your users.

Coupled with good planning, good testing can create some of the most innovative and user-friendly software in the computer industry. The developer can fail often and do so before the product arrives in the public’s hands. What this process amounts to is the re-humanization of computer software design. It forces the developer to adapt applications to people naturally, instead of forcing people to adapt to the applications.

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

—St. Thomas Aquinas

For months I’ve kept that quote on my Facebook profile in honor of Saint Thomas Aquinas, my most admired theologian. I’ve rarely given much thought as to what it really means or how it defines and shapes my life online and off. Having read and analyzed much of his most storied work, The Summa Theologica, his work has continued to focus and shape my thoughts and actions.

Reason, for Aquinas, is a unique human characteristic that allows us to understand and contemplate the greater meaning of things. Through proper application of reasonable thought, actions and words can help propel mankind toward its most fully developed state in nature: the greatest good or its Summa Bonum.

How does one determine if a habit or action propels a man toward the greater or greatest good? Reason and prudence are the lenses through which the habit in question must be examined. One has to ask if following such a course will overall provide for a more full, just, and generally happier human condition in practice. This is not to say that some things can be unreasonable, nor that reason itself can be manipulated to determine the greatest evil.

Take for example, the application of reason to traffic law. Is it not reasonable to drive on the right-hand side of the road in America today? Why is it reasonable? Is it simply because the law tells us what is right or wrong? If so, does that imply that the British are unreasonable because they chose to drive on the left-hand side? No. Humans are creatures of habit, and as such they all choose a side on which to drive. Driving on that side means you are less likely to crash and injur yourself, thus it’s a reasonably safe practice of habit. The law is reasonable because it recognizes that habit and reinforces it.

How then, does reason apply to technology and its multitudinous applications? Is a technology reasonable just because it exists? Take blogging for example: is it reasonable to create a blog about hacking government servers just because the technology is there for you to do such a thing? While I’m on that thought, I could highlight the nature of security technologies too. Is it reasonable to track the movements of every individual throughout the country just because we have the technology that allows such a monumental task? I would say that it is not. The way technology is impacts people’s everyday habits and lives is the true measure of its reasonableness. 

If a man is passionate about improving the process of computer programming, then it is reasonable that he blog about that subject to reflect upon and refine his thoughts. If he’s motivated to bring community groups together both online and offline, then it’s reasonable for him to blog about topics that concern his community. Whatever one uses the technology for, it’s reasonable insofar as it recognizes a common, just, and well-established human habit that leads to a greater good for mankind.

So how, specifically, are computer programming, internet marketing, social media, and blogging reasonable then? Are they then rendered unreasonable because they are fundamentally new activities? Have I proven myself false? The truth is quite the contrary. All of those things are digital expressions of human habits that have existed for countless centuries, well before the technologies that form them were a glimmer on the distant horizon.

One could trace computer programming back as far as the invention of the Chinese abacus. Internet marketing, fundamentally the act of selling a product or service, has been around as long as time has been recorded. Social media, the act of forming groups of friends and close-knit communities, is a centuries old human process too. How about blogging then? The distillation and development of thoughts and ideas with a keyboard and monitor differs very little from the use of paper and pen at the end of the day.

As reasonable habits, the prudence of their use can be understood and evaluated. In practice one must determine if they hold true to producing a greater good for society. One could form a social media hate group, a marketing scam, or an anarchy blog. Any of those things would produce a greater evil or state of decay rather than a greater good.

Over the weekend I took the opportunity to take in a film called “State of Play” starring Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck. I wasn’t so much as interested in the story as I was the underlying premise, a testament to traditional journalism contrasted with the all-too-common diatribe of the new media blogging community: the idea that blogs have a distinct purpose that ought not replace nor be confused with that of traditional media.

Blogs are particularly appealing by the nature and rapidity of the material they produce. A traditional newspaper is governed by the time it takes to print and publish daily. A blog has no such governor. Its content can be delivered hourly. Couple that with targeted advertisements and page rank influence generated by frequent content and you have an Internet phenomenon.

The most significant problem with blogging, much like other modern technology, is that it is easily abused–even if the publisher is well versed in the topic at hand and writing with the best of intentions. The time governor on traditional media journalism such as newspapers goes a long way to ensure the proper development of thoughts and ideas. Unlike blogs, it’s easier to get the whole story in a newspaper and formulate a prudent response or opinion, rather than react minute-by-minute.

Thus, newspapers and traditional media, by their nature, assist readers in thinking through issues more clearly and developing more informed opinions. This is not to say that newspapers cannot be slanted, opinionated, or otherwise misused. They can be. However, the same applies to any media outlet.

Thus I arrive once more at my thesis: blogs have a purpose as newspapers and traditional media has its purpose. The purpose of blogs would seem to not be news. Blogs are a great tool for community development, something that can bring people together to communicate quickly about an issue facing a community. One example I’ve personally witnesses is http://www.stopthecap.com. People came together as a group and collectively put pressure on Time Warner.

From a business perspective, blogs can serve a purpose there too. They take forums to another level, allowing for better two-way communication between product and development teams and users. When given a common theme and thesis for their content, blogs can help develop new product offerings and improve those already in existence.

The days of blogging just to blog, the Internet diaries of the 1990’s aren’t over. They are an important part of some people’s lives, giving them a sense of purpose. However, the use of blogs in a professional environment must be a refined, targeted, and purpose-driven process. They are an excellent tool for keeping our businesses and traditional media, even our politicians, honest.

Over the course of the past week I’ve been mulling over what sort of vacuum to purchase for my modest apartment space. To say the least, it was a painstaking process of Internet research, trial by fire, and simply taking advantage of generous retail return policies. I was happiest when it was finally over.

Deeply engrossed in vacuum research one night, I had to ask myself: is it tough to find a good vacuum because the economy is bad, or is the economy bad because one cannot find a good vacuum? It would be a gross understatement to postulate the economy is bad simply because of bad vacuums. The problems I experienced in the realm of floor care are merely evidence of a much larger problem.

Marketing campaigns, corporate profit margins, and materialism are some of the driving forces behind why it took me so long to find a good vacuum cleaner. Moreover, they have contributed to the economic downturn. Marketing campaigns today constantly attempt to drive the notion into people’s heads that what they have is never as good as what just came out.

Sustainability is lost in the process. Marketing obsolescence gives way to manufactured obsolescence and vice-versa. The more we design goods to fail, the more goods people must buy, and the more we masquerade incremental product releases as revolutions the more goods people feel they need.

Case in point, the razor blade wars. I witnessed razor blades go from 1 to 5 blades and then some over the years. There’s some logic behind having more blades, but at some point it becomes unnecessary. Nonetheless, I recall throwing out a 1 blade razor for a 2 blade, and today I own a 5 blade. Guilty as charged.

The same problem is evident in the housing market. Make it easy for people to own real estate and play up their desire to own homes, and you’ve suddenly got thousands of people with homes that cannot really afford those homes. Market real estate as the holy grail of prosperity and now you’ve got it even worse. We’re all paying today.

Quick fixes and a throw-away mentality are a recipe for disaster. If there’s one thing I admire most about the past, it has to be the notion of sustainability. Need to service your refridgerator, you call a friend or a repair man and he has the parts to fix it in a couple of days. Unfortunately that is becoming increasingly difficult by the day.

Today you buy a service plan that you would otherwise never use for an exorbitant fee that goes right into the pockets of the middle man. Besides, if you’ve got a fridge that’s just 3 years old, they just don’t work as well as they do today. The idea that a man ought to take good care of the things he owns is nearly lost upon us, and if it is not lost it is sadly slipping out of our reach.

It can be said of all things that certain conditions ought to exist or be otherwise provided for those things to thrive. Conversely, other conditions may exist that give rise to a state of disarray or abject weakness. Thus, if you leave a salamander out in the blazing hot desert sun all day, he will most certainly dry up and die.

I am reminded of this political science parabol on natural right and universal truth after attending the Pipedreams Organ Concert at Christ Church in downtown Rochester. Sure, one might ask, what is so special about that organ compared to any other organ in the country.

Few organs are built to the exacting specifications suitable for J.S. Bach of the 18th Century. The Craighead-Saunders at Christ Church, yet to be finished when I heard its music, currently weighs in at 30,000 lbs. and takes up the entire upper balcony at the back of the sanctuary. The crew responsible for assembling the organ was said to have been flown in from Germany and worked with the same tools that would have been used to craft such a masterpiece in the 1700’s.

To see it was equally as powerful as to hear it. The organ displayed an almost ethereal power to speak through its music. The voice and power of enlightenment era reason bellowed loud and clear through the organ’s pipes.

Construct a website poorly and visitors are frustrated, they leave your site early, and you may in fact become a target for hackers. Fashion a government poorly, and  it provides little attention to the good of its people, eventually getting overthrown or conquered. Treat your significant other with disrespect and that person will leave you. Build an organ poorly, no one will come to hear it be played.

Any organ company could have assembled an organ of similar size and scope, but few have created one with such craftsmanship and attention to detail. The Craighead-Saunders organ underscored the notion that there is in fact a way to do anything better and with more exacting precision to provide the best humanly possible results.

A wise professor once foretold that if we believed, as a society, we were still living in the heart of the information age that we were already behind the times. What she was getting at was the notion that what’s important and what’s changing the way we live and work today is no longer the role of the technology itself.

I believe that the driving force shaping the digital world that the information age imparted is the way the technology of that age is being employed. More specifically, the way search technologies are being employed across the Internet.

To paraphrase the French political philospher Alexis de Tocqueville, one of my obvious favorites on this blog: within every society lies the elements of the type of society that will succeed it, however obscured those may be.

I’d propose that the minute Google, Yahoo, Lycos, and others starting building their indexes was the minute that the underlying movement toward the Age of Search, as I’m referring it, really took hold. That once again begs the question: where does society stand today with respect to the information age and the age of search.

I started this article with a premise that suggests we’re right in the middle of the age of search. Instead, where we find ourselves is at the very cusp of the new age after it has finally taken hold on society. In order to support my claim, I’d like to highlight several examples.

First and foremost, the Google effect is in full swing. SEO and analytics are driving professional and personal conduct on the Internet. Microsoft has invested heavily in Live Search as a competitor to Google. Moreover, weaker indexes such as Lycos have fallen by the wayside.

Second, the big chip manufacturers and system builders have flatlined compared to their remarkable growth of the 1990’s. Technology is pervasive and people only need so many pc’s in a household. Apple and their ingenius marketing campaign recognized this trend best and focused their sales on what people did with technology more than how their technology was built.

Lastly, the rise of social media spheres has created vast interpersonal networks and is starting to re-humanize and web previously dominated by machines. These networks are becoming a better resource for information every day, and businesses are starting to recognize that fact. Is it easier to ask 10 friends where to find a good doctor or ask Google to query it for you? Sure, Google can tell you where, but your friends can tell you why.

I’d like to end by unscoring that I do not intend to imply that Google’s days are soon to be numbered, far from it. In fact Google seems to be making efforts daily to retool (the Latitude project), motivated by the distant but growing tidal wave of social networks. If nothing else, that alone should be a sign that we’re at the dawning of a new era. We all have a long way to go, and getting there is going to be quite an interesting journey.