|
Archives
Technology - Is Enough Ever Enough? by John J. Fanning
Throughout my long career I have had the pleasure and honor of working with
some truly brilliant people. One such individual who I will call Bob, (not his
real name) was a young man fresh from Naval service aboard submarines, who was
working as an engineer in a large building in downtown Chicago. The time period
was the late 70's; a time when building automation was still relatively new
technology and some systems were lying dormant from disuse, misuse and a general
lack of knowledge about what these systems could or should do.
This young man had extensive knowledge about computers courtesy of the Navy,
and was keen on dusting off the dormant Mark/Powers System 1000 installed in
this building. The system, which had been installed earlier at considerable
cost, had fallen victim to neglect when the one-year free technical support
ended and the building manager refused to ante up the $145 per-hour cost for
additional outside technical support.
For you younger readers, this time period was extraordinary for the profession
of Stationary Engineers. It was the point of major technological change within
our profession. It was - if you will, that moment in our history when technology
crashed headlong into century old methods of power engineering.
Within this engine room, and countless others throughout America, computer
systems were being ignored and feared by most engineers. The general lack of
knowledge about these systems fostered a great fear in many engineers that somehow,
someway, these boxes were going to replace actual people.
At that exact same time, a few young engineers were trying to embrace the
technology and learn as much as they could about it. These guys were considered
a strange lot and in many cases, they led lonely lives on the job. Nobody called
these people nerds back then, but in retrospect, that was as good a name as
any for them. They talked about bytes and RAM and rarely ate lunch with the
rest of the crew. They held fast to the belief that technology would prove to
be a salvation to the profession of Power Engineering, raising both its stature
as well as wages in years to come. They formed their own network of like-minded
engineers in many buildings in Chicago's Loop, exchanging information, software,
and conversations peppered with "data speak".
Today, history has proven these "nerds" to be right about many of the things
they predicted. But back then; it was a lonely and frustrating position to take,
especially while working around older engineers who were concerned about keeping
their jobs. And frustration is exactly what Bob felt most days on the job.
The Chief Engineer at the time knew nothing about computers, but he figured
it was a lot safer to have one of his own engineers tinker with this thing than
having some stranger - or God forbid -MANAGEMENT, messing around with it. So
Bob was given the responsibility of "taking care" of the computer.
Now in most minds, you might think that Bob's work life would have been great.
He had responsibility for something that no one else understood and most people
feared. He could, if he was so inclined, do relatively nothing and nobody would
be the wiser. Or he could attempt to do things, mess them up and nobody would
ever know. But unfortunately for Bob, as I said in the beginning, he was brilliant.
And being brilliant, Bob set out to really make the computer work for the building
and for his fellow stationary engineers. He poured over the computers manuals,
created elaborate graphics depicting each air handler, picked the brains of
every technician he came in contact with and towards the end, had about the
best operating automated building system in the city of Chicago. Management
was impressed with Bob's ability and certainly with the fact that they no longer
had to rely on expensive outside technical support for the system. And management
was - at first - pretty much inclined to give Bob what he wanted, even though
they never really understood what he wanted or why he wanted it.
Unfortunately for Bob, the economy entered into a recession and the owners
of this particular building found themselves in bankruptcy. Soon, auditors were
descending upon every department within the building, looking for ways to cut
costs and attempting to find out where money had gone. It was very frustrating
for Bob, and embarrassing for the Chief when the auditors asked why thousands
of dollars were spent on steam monitoring devices. I can still see Bob holding
up the small stainless steel turbine for the auditors to see and hear him try
to explain how the perfect machining of the turbine blades made the cost of
the device very expensive. These small turbines he said, were inserted into
the steam lines. As the steam passed through them the turbine blades would rotate
and from the RPM the computer could give exact readings of how much steam was
passing through the pipe. "Well and good" was the auditor's response. "But why
are you measuring how much steam is passing through the lines"?
Bob launched into a very technical response about how monitoring steam flow
would be important "in the future" when yet to be invented control valves would
respond to the steam flow sensors. The auditors listened patiently, and in the
end tried to explain to Bob that from their perspective, spending thousands
of dollars to monitor steam made no sense from a monetary or building management
perspective.
The auditors found lots of other things Bob had spent money on that although
were technological marvels at the time, simply served no other purpose than
to compile mountains of seemingly useless information. Bob defended his actions
and truly believed that the information he was technologically capable of gathering
was relevant, it was just that "these people" didn't understand the value of
the information.
Out of his frustration at no longer being able to add more technological devices
to the automation system, Bob left the profession of power engineering entirely.
The last time I spoke with him, 20 or so years ago, he was running his own computer
store in a western suburb.
The reason I remember this story so well is because it was at this time that
I first became aware of a potential danger, which could arise from the gulf
of understanding that separated those in the high technology field and those
who were not a part of it. I remember thinking that the auditors were right.
They were looking at the technology from the perspective of "does it make sense"
or "is there a substantial benefit" and "what is the downside". I also remember
thinking that the Chief was right. He was looking at the technology as something
that had come into the workplace and should be understood and certainly controlled.
Having control over Bob as his supervisor, the Chief assumed he was controlling
the technology. And finally I remember thinking that Bob was right. He was looking
at the technology as something that should and must continuously advance, lest
it once again lie fallow, allowing the technological advances of others to make
what is at hand obsolete, inefficient and ultimately discarded.
But I spoke of "danger" here. And that danger that I am referring to is the
danger that comes from situations where no "auditors" ever show up.
Today, technological advances come by the minute. We Americans incorporate
these advances into our business and personal lives without skipping a beat.
It amazes me how we take for granted our ability to converse with people around
the world at any second of the day. Or how we "expect" daily advances in space
exploration, medicine, and science. We Americans have not only accepted technological
advances, we love them. And love as they say, is blind.
So great is our faith in technology, that we poured millions of dollars into
the high tech stocks of companies that never made a penny in profit and never
could explain how they were going to make a profit. But that's over now. The
sobering reality struck home as the auditors entered Dot.com Company after Dot.com
Company, asking much the same questions as the auditors long ago asked of Bob.
And those that invested in these companies scratch their heads and wonder, just
like the Chief years ago, how something they thought they had control of, could
turn out so very wrong.
We all play a role in this technological paradigm we live in today. Some of
us are the technological folks like Bob was. Some of us are "auditors" who ask
questions like "what good is it", "what risks does it pose" "what does it cost".
But for the most part, we play the role of the Chief. We think we have control
over the technology, so long as we control those who are creating it and/or
using it.
So let me provide you with the following information. According to ABC News,
the Pentagon has revealed a weapon technology that projects a high-energy beam
that stuns, incapacitates, disorients and stops people - but does not kill them.
The Pentagon calls this technology "Active Denial". It works by projecting a
beam of energy at people that penetrates the skin and causes a pain similar
to that of touching a hot light bulb with your whole body.
The Pentagon has been working on it for 10 years and has spent "roughly" $40
million developing it. According to the report, Marine Corps Colonel George
P. Fenton is quoted as saying "A weapon like this could be particularly useful
when adversaries are mixed with innocent persons" (really, I'm not kidding,
that's what he said). In the report, Fenton also states that the beam will not
affect targets' eyes (don't you love how they say target instead of people)
because the targets would close their eyes or turn and run if exposed to the
sensation of pain (Hmmmm.).
Is it safe? Well hell yes! says the Pentagon. In fact, they have already tested
it on human beings 6,500 times with only one casualty occurring from "an accidental
burn". With results like that, we can look forward to deployment of these devices
real soon. Maybe even in a neighborhood near you!
Is this a new report? No. This story was posted over a week ago (at this writing)
on ABC's website. It is now in their archives. You can find the story by going
there and using their search engine to search for "Active Denial" in the Sci/Tech
section.
What concerns me most about this report, is that no one seems to care all that
much about what the Pentagon is up to here. I mean that if the same auditors
that visited Bob years ago, were to ask questions to the Pentagon, I think they
might include things like:
- What human being did you test this on? Were they wearing handcuffs? Did
they speak English?
- When (it is always just a matter of when) this technology falls into the
hands of other countries are we going to see it used against peaceful protestors,
union strikers, and other innocent people?
- Because the technology is "non-lethal" won't it be used more often and much
faster in situations that could ultimately end peacefully if patience and
common sense were used?
- What U.S. police forces other than Los Angeles will be buying these things
to use against their own citizens?
- What if I don't close my eyes, but stare like a deer caught in the headlights
at your zapper thing?
- When violent protesters are zapped, won't they escalate their own violent
actions, thus ultimately leading to deadly force?
- Are you people required to take psychological tests before being hired?
The point here is that there are no auditors within the government. No one
seems to be asking the important questions to the technology people who are
continuously building new weapons and spending millions and billions of dollars.
It appears that our elected officials are more like the Chief from years ago;
thinking they control things, but not having much of a clue as to what is really
going on. Otherwise, how could such an incredibly stupid idea like this get
"roughly" $40 million?
And it appears also that the general public is comprised of more people like
the Chief than like the auditors. People that have come to love technological
advances so much, that they are blind to the dangers that lie in unbridled research
and development by their own government. Otherwise congress would be getting
more email.
Technology has done much to enhance our lives and our profession. But technology
also has the potential of making us victims as well. This news report from the
Pentagon is just one example of technology moving ahead without consideration
being given to the practicality of its creation and deployment. Every Chief
should ask the tough questions like those posed by the auditors to every salesperson
and employee trying to introduce "cutting-edge" technology into their workplace.
Every American should ask the same tough questions to a government official
who proposes new technology as well.
Given unlimited resources, technical people will continue to build upon technology,
without giving much thought to the consequences. We have seen that in our own
engine rooms and we have seen it in ourselves as engineers who are technical
people. Admit it, we tend to want - no crave, more and more technology. We buy
software we never use, RAM we will never fill and spend the better part of our
lives browsing through Home Depot lusting after tools that will collect dust.
If we are lucky, we have a spouse who acts as an "auditor" asking us those tough
questions that help keep us out of the poor house. Technology builds upon technology.
And to keep things in perspective, we have to learn to ask the tough questions
of ourselves, our co-workers and most certainly, our government. If we don't,
then those old-timers who feared technology will be proven right after all,
and technology will eventually start to replace actual people.
Copyright John J. Fanning
All rights reserved
Send comments or questions to the author at fanning@fan.net
Archives
|
