Transcript ppt - Kevin Brock

Rhetorical Ontologies of Code
Kevin Brock
University of South Carolina
[email protected] / @brockoleur
http://www.brockoleur.com
Object-Oriented Rhetoric
• Barnett: is rhetoric a ‘human art’ ? (2010, n.p.)
• Brown: ‘attitudinal worlds’ constructed by ‘all
relations’ between humans & objects (2012,
n.p.)
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Network / Software Theory
• Galloway & Thacker: protocol as a way to
understand ‘tendencies’ of network agents to
operate via interrelations (2007, p. 28)
• Protocol, as method of control & influence to
facilitate particular relations, must be
inherently rhetorical
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Ken Thompson’s C Compiler Hack
• Thompson: code is inherently untrustworthy
as one cannot, or will not, create all of his or
her code (1984, p. 763)
• Thompson supports this claim by hacking the
C compiler (a program to turn source code
into executable files)
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
The C Compiler Hack
...
c = next( );
if(c != '\\')
return(c);
c = next( );
if(c == '\\')
return('\\');
if(c == 'n')
return('\n');
if(c == 'v')
return('\v');
...
...
c = next( );
if(c != '\\')
return(c);
c = next( );
if(c == '\\')
return('\\');
if(c == 'n')
return('\n');
if(c == 'v')
return(11);
...
compile(s)
char *s;
{
if(match(s, "pattern1")) {
compile("bug1");
return;
}
if(match(s, "pattern2")) {
compile("bug2");
return;
}
...
}
(Thompson, Figure 2.2)
(Thompson, Figure 2.3)
(Thompson, Figure 3.3)
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
The C Compiler Hack
Clean
Code
Clean
Compiler
Clean
Executable
(processing code
normally before
Thompson’s hack
is implemented)
Unclean
Code
Clean
Compiler
Infected
Executable
(inserting
Thompson’s
Trojan Horse)
Clean
Code
Infected
Compiler
‘Clean’
Executable
(incorporating the
infected compiler
into the normal
process)
Clean
Code
‘Clean’
Compiler
‘Clean’
Executable
(replacing the
infected compiler
with a cleansource compiler)
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Who or What Has Agency Here?
• Latour: technology is ‘an interchange between
what humans inscribe in it and what it
prescribes to them’ (1996, p. 213)
• Being emerges from rhetorical activity for
Trojan Horse author, code languages, physical
computer, electrical flows/digitizations, etc.
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
DNA (Codon) Reprogramming
• Lajoie et al. reprogram three-nucleotide
sequences (codons) to facilitate new types of
chemical reactions between amino acids &
proteins (2013)
• Potential applications include new adhesives,
medications, disease-resistant foods
Codon Reprogramming
Lajoie et al. (2013, Figure 1)
Chemical Programming with DNA
• Chen et al. construct a new programming
language for consensus-based calculation
using ‘complex signal processing’ from
biological & chemical inputs (2013, p. 755)
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Chemical Programming
X = majority species signal
Y = minority species signal
B = buffer signal
Solid lines = consensus results
Dashed lines = anticipated
(computed) results
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Chen et al. (2013, from Figure 5)
Agency in DNA Programming
• Rhetorical agency and being exist in DNA
nucleotides, protocols of combination,
chemical reaction responses, generated
proteins, human researchers, modified organic
and inorganic entities
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Programmatic Persuasion
• Code, biological and technological, serves to
‘program’ (rhetorically persuade) agents to act
– Facilitating novel means of invention in response
to emerging situations / contexts
• How can we recognize this rhetorical activity
as it takes place in numerous iterations daily?
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur
Works Cited
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barnett, Scot. “Toward an Object-Oriented Rhetoric.” Enculturation 7 (2010). Web.
http://enculturation.gmu.edu/toward-an-object-oriented-rhetoric
Brown, James J. “Paul Cret and the Decorum of Objects.” Clinamen: Thuswise to Serve. 28 May 2012. Web.
http://clinamen.jamesjbrownjr.net/2012/05/28/paul-cret-and-the-decorum-of-objects/
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California Press. 1969. Print.
Chen, Yuan-Jyue et al. “Programmable Chemical Controllers Made from DNA.” Nature Nanotechnology 8
(29 Sept. 2013): 755-762. Print.
Galloway, Alexander R. and Eugene Thacker. The Exploit: A Theory of Networks. Minneapolis: U of
Minnesota Press, 2007. Print.
Geddes, Linda. “Reprogrammed Bacterium Speaks New Language of Life.” New Scientist (17 Oct. 2013). Web.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24427-reprogrammed-bacterium-speaks-new-language-of-life.html
Lajoie, Marc J. et al. “Genomically Recoded Organisms Expand Biological Functions.” Science 342 (2013): 357-360.
Print.
Latour, Bruno. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996. Print.
Thompson, Ken. “Reflections on Trusting Trust.” Communications of the ACM 27.8 (1984): 761-763. Print.
Kevin Brock / University of South Carolina / [email protected] / @brockoleur