I spent a good chunk of a day reminiscing about "the good old days". The days when computers were expected to crash, when software executables could easily be moved around, and when the debate was between vi and EMACS (two text processors on unix systems). The debate was sparked anew by the repeated need to reboot my laptop during a particularly frustrating debugging session experienced by a programmer with similar memories.

Fortunately, I wasn't doing any debugging. I was thumbing through a magazine.

The September/October issue of MIT Technology Review had fallen into my hands. In it was a column that was a rebuttal of an article in Wired regarding the efficacy of new technologies. The expectation proposed in Wired was that high tech would soon bring us to a point where an accident would wipe out civilization. The author, a well-known computer scientist, had called for self-imposed limits in the realm of intellectual pursuits - let's simply not explore ideas that might lead to danger. The rebuttal in Technology Review took umbrage with the idea that "…logic can anticipate the effect of intended or unintended acts." The whole conversation struck me as fear generated by ignorance versus confidence generated by ignorance.

Maybe I misread the article. It didn't help that I was interrupted numerous times while reading it because I had to log back into my computer. One has to do that after a reboot on a network.

Despite the annoyance of rebooting, I felt pretty good about my own computing resources. After reminiscing about the good old days, I realized I still have my 10 year-old 486 computer. I can still fire up the PC version of JOVE (Jonathon's Own Version of Emacs), or even Wordperfect 4.2 if I like. I accomplished a lot with those two programs. A lot of those accomplishments are still accessible, not lost due to upgrades or compatibility problems.

When putting computers to use, I am interested in making an effective use of my time. I put the tools to a pretty high standard. I am not as extreme as, for example, the members of the Lead Pencil Club. These folks argue that paper and pencil is the most effective means of communication. They have arguments about whether the pen is high-tech, therefore too ineffective. I do use a word processor. It tells me the words I've misspelled. I ignore most of the grammar suggestions. Word processor - effective.

I do not think I would be effective with one of the new handheld organizers, or personal digital assistant (PDA) as they are sometimes called. I have tried. I had a lawyer deliver an impassioned speech to me about the benefits he received from his Palm Pilot. He also had a watch that could receive pages. I couldn't get his Palm Pilot to understand my handwriting, or graffiti as I think it's called. I have a Filofax. I can use a pen with it in a way I learned in school. My handwriting then only matters to me. The handheld computers, with their special writing and their many constraints on functionality, have yet to appeal to me. Filofax and pen - effective.

A few days after the fruitless debugging session, scientists announced that robots had been constructed that could be made to make more robots of a simple type.

As I sat down on my porch with my fired up computer - the one that earlier had to be rebooted numerous times - and my polarized sunglasses shading my eyes from the sun, I notice that the light coming from the monitor is polarized. I notice this because the screen looks too dim, even with sunglasses on. I tilt my head and it brightens. I tilt my head the other way and it goes black. Keeping my head in a comfortable position makes the screen just a tad too dim. I take the sunglasses off and squint. I put the sunglasses back on and grab a book.

I have started reading nonfiction writers. I like William Zinsser. I read his books on writing, and started reading his book on travel. I also looked into John McPhee. The question I had, after reading a few thousand words of McPhee, was a short one "Is John McPhee the Sinclair Lewis of non-fiction?" Then I started to think how a computer could help me answer this question. Let us see for ourselves how these engines of destruction can inquire and respond. Instead of ignorance about their capabilities, we will interrogate them.

I plugged my laptop into the phone line, logged into my internet service provider, took off my sunglasses, turned my back to the sun, and went to work.

Three questions of my choosing were asked in this test. The three questions are as follows:

1. "What art is it that you call calculation?" - This is from one of Plato's dialogues. I got the questions from the online text. The answer Plato gave, or rather Socrates gave as told by Plato, has been recorded for thousands of years.
2. "What is two plus two" - This serves as an easy one. After all, computers should at least compute.
3. "Is John McPhee the Sinclair Lewis of nonfiction?" - This is a complex one, requiring the computer to render an opinion.

The computerized participants attempting to answer the questions are as follows:

1. Ask Jeeves - An online, natural language search engine. By making whole sentence inquiries, Ask Jeeves responds by suggesting a number of, perhaps, related questions it can answer, along with links that will, supposedly, answer that question. As of August 26, 2000, Ask Jeeves had a market capitalization of 896.4 million dollars. It's search engine is at http://www.ask.com/
2. MIT - This prestigious university, known as a center of excellence for technology, has 702 patents that are actively and exclusively being commercially developed. Its artificial intelligence group has a natural language search engine, using neural networks, available at http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/infolab/
3. Thunderstone - Another natural language search engine. According to its web site " More Internet searches are conducted by our software on a daily basis than any other available package." It is available at http://www.thunderstone.com/
4. The Magic Eight Ball - A control. Available on the web at http://www.springfield-il.com/kids/8ball/8_ball.html

Microsoft's natural language page produced an error when I tried to access it. They did not get to participate.

Question 1 - What art is it that you call calculation?

Plato - "…calculation is in the same case as numeration, for both are concerned with the same thing, the odd and the even; but that they differ to this extent, that calculation considers the numerical values of odd and even numbers not merely in themselves but in relation to each other"

Jeeves - "Where can I learn about the Abstract Expressionist period or movement in art history?"

MIT - "Unfortunately, I do not understand this sentence."

Thunderstone - "CRAFTWORKS Embroidery Center - Embroidery as Advertising Ocean City, NJ Real Estate and vacation rentals with Mark Grimes Realtor"

8-ball - "Yes, definitely"

Question 2 - What is two plus two?

Me - "4"

Jeeves - "Where can I find an online calculator?" (The link did lead to a calculator that gave the correct result.)

MIT - "The result is 4.0." (Note the extra significant digit.)

Thunderstone - "Peggy Lutz Plus Online custom made clothing at off the rack prices"

8 ball - "Most Likely"

Question 3 - Is John McPhee the Sinclair Lewis of nonfiction?

Me - "Lewis was known for a journalistic and naturalistic approach to writing fiction. The long historical essays that one could find in the previous century, in, say, Victor Hugo's fiction writing, had become long list of descriptive details in the hands of Lewis. In a sense, this is writing as something influenced by photography, rather than painting. McPhee is known to use the structures and methods of fiction writing in his journalism. He uses detail, sometimes excessive detail (see his "Rocks" series) to tell a story. So both are known for incorporating methods from other types of writing, and for including a lot of detail."

Jeeves - "Where can I find the online store Archie McPhee?"

MIT - "'I'm afraid I can't help you with that."

Thunderstone - "No exact matches were located. Try using fewer or different terms."

8-ball - "You may rely on it"

I sleep easily.