Reading 02: Hardware Hackers

 From the get go and forwards into this section of the book, I started to realize I truly did not like this part as much as the last one. Which is weird, because I agree a lot with the sentiments and statements regarding using computers as political tools, and regarding the use of computers for the every-person, and not just the 'elite' or 'extreme hobbyists'. I think a lot of the reason I did not like this section was due to the shift in writing style. Every paragraph is littered with new public figures, most of which do not have second mentions, and multiple name-drops of either important people or important computers like its a Marvel movie. The Steve Wozniak name drop at the end of the paragraph on page 159 is a good example of this. Do I think that this changes the overall intention and meaning of the section? No, but I think it gets in the way a little. I think the overall intention of this chapter is to display the major differences in the way people started to interact and think about computers as a result of the changing in technology over the 60s-80s, shown through the lens of a bunch of people who were on the 'front lines' of it in California. The purpose is to show the shift in the schools of thought surrounding computers, where the traditional MIT-esque hacker culture was being morphed into something new, with an emphasis on open computing and the social nature of turning one computer hobbyist into four. The chapters talked a lot about the grassroots social nature of mid-early computing, which really does not exist in our world as much due to computers now being (literally) everywhere all of the time. I do not think that computers would be as commercially available and as engrained in our culture as it is now without these early-mid Hardware Hackers, and the switch away from the MIT schools of computing thought. Even with the discretions in computing thought, such as the differences that Felsenstein and Lipkin, these were good discretions and conversations that needed to be brought forward if computing really was going to be as open as they wanted it to be. I agree with both Felsenstein and Lipkin in different ways. I think that Lipkin is completely correct in the sense that technology and computing can be incredibly oppressive from a governmental perspective. Multiple modern-day governments have proven that fact, be it Russian propaganda surrounding Ukraine or North Korea and its grip on the psyche of its nationals. However, Felsenstein is also correct. Computers can be a force for good, and have been proven to do so in a variety of ways from easing access to healthcare, minimizing human isolation, making bureaucracy and businesses more efficient, etc. Every new technological innovation leads to both of these things becoming true, always. Every technology has its good sides, and its bad sides. For instance, the steam engine was revolutionary and a driving force of the industrial revolution, but also completely crippled the market for horses as transportation animals. The connection of computers through public webpages made The Internet, the largest collection of free human information ever conceived, but also made underground illegal marketplaces like The Silk Road thrive. I think that it is important that no matter what, most, if not all, new technological improvements should be like the computer is to us now, open and free to learn. This is because all technology has its good and bad sides, and public knowledge of both the good and bad leads to a progressing and prosperous society that can use these technologies while being aware and mindful of the bad things that the tech can do.