Luke's Blog

Final Blog Post

2006-03-13T11:50:00.000-08:00

What is the most important thing you learned in this course? Why?

The most important thing that I have learned this quarter is to appreciate digital media. The reason behind this is because I have meditated on how life would be without technology and how much more difficult it would be without many of the digital media people take for granted day-by-day. An example of this would be cell-phones. Cell-phones in the late 80’s to early 90’s were carried around more for show and status as opposed to usefulness and usability. However, cell-phones have become a necessity in today’s busy-body world and is much more flexible in affordability and usefulness. Another would be the internet, an everyday piece of digital media that is given hardly any thought. Without the internet, so many of our everyday routines are eliminated, as well as meaningful connections people might have through the internet. Whereas an email might have taken five minutes to write to a grandmother in Japan, it will now take physical money and time to be sent via snail mail. Or, perhaps there is a new rock group to be discussed with someone in Europe who has the same exact interests regarding this rock group, but instant messaging suddenly vanishes. Now, one must resort to buying a phone card and calling each other using money.

On the same token, however, as much as digital media should be praised, I feel it is also necessary to become more wary of it. The NSA, for example, are allowed to tap into our phone lines and to keep suspicious people under surveillance because they have the technology to do so. It is widely known that the Hubble Telescope’s range from outer space is so accurate that it can read the words encircling the inside of a dime. Moreover, if technology remains unchecked, those with accessibility may abuse it.

What would you like to have had more time to study? Why?

If I had more time to study a certain topic, I would be very interested in studying the internet. Though people seem to believe they know everything there is to know about the internet, I am still amazed at its existence and its never-ending capabilities. The possibilities regarding the internet are endless. Questions that I live with today involve asking myself, “Will the internet become the first form of artificial intelligence? If a virus was to run rampant within the internet, would it perhaps evolve into something that may be considered artificial intelligence?” “Because a virus is constantly changing and growing, would it perhaps provide the internet with a type of digital soul, one that may be able to make decisions on its own?” “In the future, would it be possible to download one’s consciousness and translate it to digital data?” If given more time, I would have liked to research the current existence of the internet, where it originated it, how it has grown, and why the internet is global.

What topic was the least interesting to you? Why

The least interesting topic discussed class, personally, was the UNIX and Microsoft dispute. The main reason being I have already read about the battle between the two, though I was encouraged to think of it in different ways. Other than this aspect, I felt I was very engaged in class and had a very fulfilling experience in Com 300, as I have learned various new forms of digital media and its everyday uses.

How VoIP Works by Robert Valdes

2006-03-03T02:06:00.000-08:00

How do you expect VoIP to impact cable and telephone networks (both are regulated infrastructure industries)

In his article "How VoIP Works" by Robert Valdes, VOIP, or Voice Over Internet Protocol, translates analog audio signals into digital data which is then processed via the internet. The importance of this is that VoIP turns a standard Internet connection into a way to place free phone calls, bypassing telephone companies and the costs that come with using the services of a telephone company.

Valdes argues that the VoIP is a "revolutionary technology that has the potential to completely rework the world's phone systems" (How VoIP Works, Valdes). Valdes claims that VoIP providers such as Vonage and AT&T have already created markets around the United States, preparing themselves for the potential of VoIP and the adoption of it by people across the nation.

However, one might ask the question as to what the importance of switching over to VoIP might be. Valdez argues that the price is one of the main concerns as to why the switch is important. Valdez states, "Most VoIP companies are offering minute-rate plans structured like cell ph bills for as little as $30 per month. On the higher end, some offer unlimited plans for $79. With the elimination of unregulated charges and the suite of free features that are included with these plans, it can be quite a savings" (How VoIP Works, Valdez). However, having read his entire article, it is in my personal opinion that VoIP is simply a novel idea, and has little to no chance of success unless it integrates options are simply unbearable to live with or are necessary to every day life. The reason I come to this belief is simply because at this moment in time, there are simply too many flaws and faults with VoIP.

Valdez points out that the first con is the lack of power in the event of an outage and that VoIP may become useless in such an event. However, I feel it is first necessary to discuss the implications of changing over to VoIP. From what Valdez claims, the only advantage of switching over to VoIP is because it will free up a phone line and will utilize an already existing (most likely) internet source. However, in all honesty, even the internet was a shaky knowledge to tackle for people of the older generation. Only tech geeks and computer-oriented people ventured into the technology and realized its potential as a transnational tool, further perpetuating its use as it has transformed it into today's current form. How much more difficult, then, will it be for VoIP to become normalized and integrated into everyday use? Simply put, I do not see enough advantages or the trouble of switching over to VoIP and having to tackle the tedious job of having to disconnect my service, downloading a foreign software and then attempting to use it on a computer that may not even able to run it. Granted, the people living in the higher echelons of society may have the resources to command such a program, the majority of the United States is poor and middle-class at best. This, though it may be unintentional, imposes a standard that most may not be able to adhere to. And, as Valdez mentions, VoIP is capable of sharing the problems that plague the internet, especially 14.4k users: lag, echoing, or simply a poor connection. With all of these technical issues, why would anyone in their right mind use VoIP unless they are simply curious and have no better way of spending their time and money?

Not to mention the older generation will find VoIP a complete hassle and will most likely reject it after having heard it can 1) run out of power and in the case of a heart-attack or emergency would not be able to contact 911, 2) that it is capable of attracting a virus or being hacked, both things the older generation would most likely want to avoid due to the technicality of mentioned problems, and 3) because it provides and charges extra for services that come bundled with the use of the home phone.

The internet though it can be said that it is the evolution of the telephone wire, has evolved so much that it is simply unrecognizable and can exist as its own entity. Further, its use is multi-purpose, whether it be email, chatting, ordering online, business negotiations, video-conferencing, etc; VoIP is not. In its current form, VoIP lacks a value of necessity and simply promotes luxury. It is a new piece of technology that may perhaps evolve into something bigger in the future, but as it is right now, it simply has too many flaws to be of any extraordinary use. I say this because as a consumer, I personally see no reason why I should use VoIP when Skype and other similar programs that allow a user to use their computer as a make-shift phone exist. Valdez also discusses the various options for VoIP, and for the most part, these services parallel the services offered by regular telephone service users and services outlined for cell phone users. However, "VoIP companies provide the features that normal phone companies charge extra for when they are added to your service plan. VoIP includes [caller ID, call waiting, call transfer, repeat dial, return call, and three-way calling]" (How VoIP Works, Valdes).

Ultimately, I feel that cable and telephone networks may try and incorporate VoIP into their infrastructures, rather than completely throwing away the existing technology and absolutely adopting VoIP as the standard.

Three Questions:

How might VoIP change the way people communicate in the future?

How might VoIP be incorporated into the existing cable and telephone networks?

3. What uses other than telephoning can VoIP technology be used for?

Wireless Revolution and Universal Access by Michael L. Best

2006-02-22T06:26:00.000-08:00

What is the relationship between cyberspace as a public space and accessibility standards?

In Michael L. Best's article, "Wireless Revolution and Universal Access," he discusses the implications of wireless access and how this may open new venues for future universal access to take place. By taking economics into consideration, Best points out that poor markets are profitable, if managed in the correct manner. Best argues that three courses of action are necessary in order to carry out profitability and accessibility for low-end communites, which are:

• New and low-cost technologies, especially terrestrial wireless infrastructure -- Per-line
costs, and prices for subscriber premises equipment, can and should be brought down, by an
order of magnitude, from thousands to hundreds of dollars.
• Micro and small enterprises that provide locally tailored value-added services -- A broad
basket of value-added services flowing from community-based ICT facilities can ensure
revenue flows and create value to the community.
• Supportive public policy -- Policy-makers must view rural and universal access as drivers of
development and not sources of government revenue. In particular, spectrum licence
exemptions can allow for low entry barriers for small entrepreneurs."

By employing such strategies, Best argues accessibility is possible, as well as the providers of the internet being able to profit from providing internet accessibility. Moreover, out of all his ideas I felt the idea of having Village Area Network (VAN) was a very feasible idea. "The goal of a VAN is to provide services and capabilities that enhance the economic development of rural communities, raising living, medical and educational standards....The VAN network, covering about one square kilometer, took three days to install, at a cost of less than USD 20,000 (and these prices have fallen considerably in the last two years). It employs a set of outdoor radio antennas and routers operating under the IEEE 802.11b standard at 11 mbps.20 The VAN
extends the facilities of a multipurpose community telecentre (MCT) throughout the village, via mobile and fixed wireless devices and services." I personally feel that a for a village to have internet capabilities essentially means the perpetuation of economic expansion and accessibility to a knowledge that was non-existent prior to the arrival of the internet to this rural community.

I feel one thing that Best forgot to mention is that tutors to show the village people how to use the internet is also integral, as well as teaching them censorship, accessibility/inaccessibility, rules and regulations the community (or country) might have in regard to the internet, etc. Though there may be technicalities and difficulties that come with the advent of the internet, I feel the beneficial potential far outweighs such problems.

Three Questions:

1. How might the introduction of the internet into rural villages further help that community?

2. What potential ways might the internet be used to bring the community together?

3. How might the internet affect the future of children brought up in rural settings?

The Race of Websites 2004

2006-02-13T11:07:00.000-08:00

How does Internet technology impact politics? Do you agree with the premise of these authors?

Kathy Gill's "The Race of Websites 2004" was a thoughtful and helpful site that shows the differences between the Bush Administration and the Kerry Administration in 2004 and their outline of their internet websites for their campaigns. She discusses the structure of the websites, how text is placed on the website, the organization, links, the size, loading time, as well as the user friendliness of the websites.

The one thing that I felt very interesting that Gill points out is the candidate blogs, and how Bush's site tries to be "too interactive," an example being the Quick Vote polls.

Ultimately, I personally feel that it is of utmost importance for the websites to be very user friendly, so that "even a caveman can do it" (Geico, random commercial). I feel this is important because the majority of the populace of the United States is not college educated and some have not graduated from high school. Taking these into consideration, it is important that websites particularly like the ones regarding the presidential elections cater to both people from the lower and higher ends of the education spectrum. Moreover, most of the United States is in the lower class; it is important that those without high-speed internet have equal access to these websites. Gill points this out as she discusses the size of Bush and Kerry's websites, and how Bush's website (due to content and size) takes longer to load than Kerry's website. For those in rush or a lack of an attention span, waiting 5-10 minutes (especially on dial-up) is a very long time to wait.

It would be wise for future presidential elections to include analysts such as Gill and to take their thoughts into consideration while creating their presidential election websites.

Three Questions

1. What might future presidential elections include in their websites in order to build credibility and ethos with their audience?

2. How might such websites become more interactive in the future?

3. Will websites ever be able to record most votes in the future (as opposed to physically going to booths and filling out votes)?

The Role of the Internet in National and Local News Media Use

2006-02-13T10:47:00.000-08:00

How does Internet technology impact politics? Do you agree with the premise of these authors?

According to the article, "The Role of the Internet in National and Local News Media Use," internet technology causes politics to become much more transparent, as it becomes visible to a much wider range of individuals across the United States. "This study's results suggest that the long-standing finding that newspapers are the medium that contribute the most to political knowledge may be changing. Among those who have Internet access in these two Minnesota communities, we find that Internet news is a significant predictor of national political knowledge, even while controlling for common correlates of political knowledge and adjusting for potential problems with selection bias. This finding has significant implications for the study of political knowledge and underscores the need for researchers to take into consideration Internet news sources." For the most part, I agree with authors in regard to the premise of this article. Newspapers, slowly but surely, are becoming obsolete, as new methods of internet search is being discovered and due to the internet helping news becoming much more accessible, whether it be through the use of a cell phone, a Blackberry, or a palm pilot. In regard to this accessibility to news, it is also in conjunction with the accessibility to politics.

Furthermore, I also contend that convenience is also a factor that plays in the role of the impact of the internet on politics. We live in a day and age where smaller and thinner is better and some may consider newspapers to be cumbersome and difficult to "access," whereas a cell phone or Blackberry provides the news/politics literally in the palm of your hand.

Ultimately, I feel that the accessibility and convenience factor contribute much to the internet's impact on politics and agree with how the authors in this article argue that the internet will ultimately subsume the newspaper.

Three Questions:

1. What are the benefits of the internet over the newspaper? Vice versa?

2. What are potential problems that may result as people begin to use the internet to search for news rather than using newspapers?

3. How might news be broadcasted in the future?

From Tom Paine to Blogs

2006-02-06T10:50:00.000-08:00

What are the implications of blogging technology on established media?

According to Tom Paine's article, blogging can and will influence established media, both as it had done in the past, is doing in the present, and will continue to do so in the future. When 9/11 occurred, most likely every American felt a sense of rage that has not been provoked before; a foreign nation taking down one of America's most symbolic monuments representing America's economic growth and how much it has achieved in the last few decades. However, instead of urging to go to war and to act out on the emotions immediately after the incident, bloggers (as mentioned by Paine) conveyed their emotions and how important it was to keep in mind liberty, justice and what America has stood for up to this day.
The implications on blogging technology is phenomonal; as long as the writer is seen as a credible is source and has built up enough ethos to his/her audience, it will be taken as plausible and will be shared with netizens all over the United States, and perhaps the entire world. Paine uses Tamim Ansary as an example. "Ansary’s news had flowed upward and outward. At the
outset, no one from a major network had ever heard of him. But what he said had sufficient authority that people who knew him spread his message, first to their own friends and ultimately to web journalists who spread it further. Only then did the mass media discover it and take it to a national audience. This was the best kind of grassroots collaboration with Big Media" (Paine, p. 22).
Though perhaps situational, Ansary's blog had a huge effect, and like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond, mainstream media was eventually effected, and in effect, affected public consensus in regard to post-9/11.
9/11 was huge. However, it is people such as Glenn Reynolds that has helped blogging achieve a reputable name. Blogging almost seems like a watchdog, keeping accountable mainstream media as well as reminding them of their responsibilities that although they are talk-show hosts and can discuss a wide range of issues, that first we are American, and as Americans it is essential to uphold the values of the Constitution. Another example uses is Glenn Reynolds. "In Tennessee, meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds was typing, typing, typing into his weblog, Instapundit.com, which he’d started only a few weeks earlier. A law professor with a technological bent, he’d originally expected the blog to be somewhat lighthearted. The attacks changed all that. “I was very reactive,” he told me. “I had no agenda. I was just writing about stuff, because the alternative was sitting there and watching the plane crash into the tower again and again on CNN.”
He was as furious as anyone, and wanted retaliation. But he warned against a backlash targeting Muslims. He said Americans should not give into the temptation to toss out liberty in
the name of safety. He didn’t expect to develop a following, but that happened almost immediately. He’d struck a chord. He we the media heard from people who agreed and disagreed vehemently. He kept the discussion going, adding links and perspectives" (Paine, p. 22).
Of course, there may result negatives to blogging. A few examples involve an uncredible source that is able to present their blog in a pleasing manner may sway the opinions of readers towards a direction that lacks evidence and is false, or blogs being used to campaign to sway public opinion for a particular candidate. It is the belief that blogging and its technology can be used for good that I personally promote it.

Three Questions:

1. How might bloggers keep public media accountable in the future?

2. How can blogs be better used to give strength to grassroots organizations?

3. What are several characteristics that are necessary in order for blogs to be both effective and credible?

The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head

2006-01-30T10:12:00.000-08:00

The author of "The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head" makes a point on the emergence of a new superpower, namely the internet. The author also explains how this new supeerpower is superior to the US government and its participative democracy in many ways. "Where political participation in the United States is exercised mainly through rare exercises of voting, participation in the second superpower movement occurs continuously through participation in a variety of web-enabled initiatives. And where deliberation in the first superpower is done primarily by a few elected or appointed officials, deliberation in the second superpower is done by each individual—making sense of events, communicating with others, and deciding whether and how to join in community actions. Finally, where participation in democracy in the first superpower feels remote to most citizens, the emergent democracy of the second superpower is alive with touching and being touched by each other, as the community works to create wisdom and to take action." The author discusses the empowerment of the second superpower because it gives more power to the individual and allows individuals (as a collective force) to make differences in the world when need be.

However, though the author's ideals are respectable, I feel that he is blind-sighted by the possible good and does not realize the potential bad. In a way, it would seem that the author of this article is advocating a sort of collective anarchy, where if enough people think its okay, then it should be okay. I understand that it is important that people be allowed to make their own choices and perhaps how they want a government to be run. However, I am also aware that humans are easily manipulated, and if one superior thinker was to appear among the masses of this internet democracy who knew which strings to pull and which course of action to take in order to win the vote of the people, I feel that people of this second superpower will become more or less internet Nazis.

When Hitler first began his campaign in Germany, no one under his rule would have thought they would be part of one of the world's most depraving and atrocious crimes: mass genocide of Jews and others who were not part of the Aryan race. How can one even take part in such a crime? Ask the people that ruthlessly executed thousands upon ten thousands of people a day, wheel-barreling out bodies if it were trash. Looking back, no one in their right mind would like to participate in such a crime. Yet, who is to say one would not commit similar crimes if part of an uncentralized, unorganized government such as this second superpower?

The convenience of immediate communication is nice, as well as future possibilities of video conferencing and realtime chat. However, I feel that it is integral to avoid becoming a slave of the tool we created, and that we take control of it.

As much as there are possibilities for the future and the internet, there is also that much more evil that can occur if we are to fully buy into this second superpower.

Three Questions:

1. What are potential problems associated with this emeregent super-power?

2. Although everyone is allowed the right to participate (i.e., forums), what potential problems are associated with this right?

3. How might democracy evolve in the future, with the advent of technology such as video-conferencing?

The GNU Manifesto

2006-01-30T09:49:00.000-08:00

Why should communication scholars study the open source software movement?

Scholars should study the open source software such as UNIX because it provides insight and awareness into software that we hardly have any knowledge about. For the most part, people simply buy into Windows and Microsfot software because it has become the norm, if not the requisite. However, software such as UNIX is free; people from all over the world work on UNIX and distribute it for free. Some may argue, "But UNIX won't be as good as Microsoft's Windows because it probably has a lot of glitches and its unprofessional." Nay. If anything, UNIX (back in the late 1990's) was a threat to Microsoft. Microsoft did not know how to combat a self-evolving software that was virtually free as opposed to their software, which goes from around $200-$300. In order to combat such threats as UNIX, Microsoft would do the following:

"Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will."

Instead of dividing and conquering, the writers of UNIX want it to be from such business strategies. It would seem the writers wholeheartedly want UNIX to be used in a fashion that allows it freedom from business strangeholds and wants to promote the idea of free software. Though probably not mentioned for the fear of libel, back in the 1990's, Microsoft was its biggest competitor, trying to shut UNIX down. However, UNIX still exists, though it does lack the momentum it had before.

I feel that scholars should take interest in this matter because there can be many great benefits to UNIX:

"Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air. This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art....Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes....Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by this....Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted."

I feel that the software UNIX provides is somewhat of a fresh air, in which it allows its users much more freedom than Microsoft, since it can be both modified and changed at the will of the user. By studying the open-software movement, I feel scholars can learn more about software and the way it might be used in the future, not just for operating systems but for internet browsers, programs in phones, gaming technology, and etc.

Three Questions

1. What potential problems might there be to the development of UNIX?

2. How can Microsoft and UNIX perhaps come to a compromise in regard to the future operating system?

3. Who will designate the support/customer service for UNIX? Will it be legitimate/legal?

"Being Analog" by Dan Norman

2006-01-23T22:03:00.000-08:00

How have these readings changed your view of the man-machine relationship?

In response to Dan Norman's "Being Analog" article, I feel that Norman is arguing on only one end of the spectrum in regard to the existing man-machine relationship in present-day society. Though he does bring up valid points of humans being too dependant on technology and machines, he does not validate or reinforce such contentions with any evidence as to why this is actually a bad thing. I could not make sense of the following paragraph:

"Here we are, wandering about the world, bumping into things, forgetful of details, with a poor sense of time, a poor memory for facts and figures, unable to keep attention on a topic for more than a short duration, reasoning by example rather than by logic, and drawing upon our admittedly deficient memories of prior experience. When viewed this way, we seem rather pitiful. No wonder that we have constructed a set of artificial devices that are very much not in our own image. We have constructed a world of machinery in which accuracy and precision matter. Time matters. Names, dates, facts, and figures matter. Accurate memory matters. Details matter."

Norman fails to explain why accuracy is unimportant or why precision is unimportant. He assumes all humans are retardations of what they used to be and that we have evolved into something grotesque and stupid.

Furthermore, his Noah/Moses example did not fool me. Moses never herded any animals was my immediate reaction to Norman's question. He claims that I was unusually alert, and that it is normal for people to have been fooled. "Those of you who were fooled responded normally: that is how we are meant to be." As a result of such an ignorant comment, my perspective on Norman has turned for the worst. I see him as looking down on the human race, and that people have to be the way he expects them to be: ignorant, stupid, and un-alert in order for one to be classified as “normal.” It would seem that he chooses to reject anybody that does not fit into ideal schema of what a human being should be.

Norman asks the question, "Why do accuracy and precision matter? In our natural world, they don't. We are approximate beings: we get at the meanings of things, and for this, the details don't much matter." Someone has said that all people are cogs within a clockwork, each and every piece trying its best to run society in an efficient manner, much like a well-oiled machine. Norman has gripes with it; I don't. On the flipside of what Norman argues, one might believe he is an anarchist, that anything that has to do with accuracy, order and precision are meaningless, and that "we get at the meaning of things." If his useless ideas were incorporated into America today, there would be such a high demand for jails and prisons as well as outlaws in the country America would most likely collapse upon itself.

"Analog signals behave in ways the person can understand. A slight error or noise transforms the signals in known ways, ways the body has evolved to interpret and cope with. In a digital signal, the representation is so arbitrary, that a simple error can have unexpected consequences....If there is some noise in a conventional television signal, encoded in analogical form, we see some noise on the screen. Usually we can tolerate the resulting image, at least as long as we can make sense of it. Small amounts of noise have slight impact." Opinions, opinions, and more opinions. Norman contends much psycho-babble and clearly portrays his paranoia of technology advancing upon and taking over the human race.

My mind has not changed at all reading Norman since he is unable to state anything that does not have to do with his own persona preference. I find it ironic how Norman speaks as though his ideals are the ideal for American society, and that how everyone should heed what he says. Is not this, in turn, being an advocate for precision, accuracy and order? That everyone should turn to his belief of machines or become slaves of machines? Oh, and the most ironic thing: if it weren't for the technology that he hates so much that has stagnated the evolution of the human race (i.e., hyper-texting, HTML, and the internet), I would never come across his sorry piece of literature in the first place.

I personally do not feel the relationship between human beings and technology is fatal; the use of technology is still at the use of the human being’s discretion. However, I do agree some technology is forced upon people in order to keep up with the times. However, one can still get by without a cell phone, without the internet, without the X-Box, without an I-Pod. It just makes life that much more difficult.

Three Questions:

Will computers take over the world in the future?
Is achieving sentience for computes a good or bad thing?
When is technology too much?

Mark R. Nelson's Article

2006-01-18T10:21:00.000-08:00

Nelson, in his article "We Have the Information You Want, But Getting It Will Cost You," discusses the advent of the internet and how it has transformed into the information super-highway and the various implications it has had on the processing and understanding of information. Nelson discusses though the breadth of information has increased, its focus and the visibility people desire when attempting to find something has decreased due to the increase of information everyday. Nelson claims, "One reason that resource discovery is difficult on the Internet is that many resources are not "advertised'' well or are difficult to access."

The same applies particularly for my academic life. When I type in deliberative forums on Lexus-Nexus, I am presented with well over 1,000 articles. Having done research for different course work, I am well-aware that it would be fatal to go through each and every article to see if it matches up with my research topic. If anything, I click around, guessing and hoping I will run across one that will be useful for my topic.

I believe Nelson defines this as information overload. According to Nelson, information overload "is the inability to extract needed knowledge from an immense quantity of information for one of many reasons." Often times, the sources students use in their research projects are ones that they have randomly come across and as luck would have it, sources that are useful for their projects.

I believe the availability of information today is a double-edged sword. One the one hand, because there is such a wide variety of information available, there are just that many more sources to draw upon. However, on the other hand, it makes it that much more difficult to focus the information and to find information that is narrowly tailored. Moreover, due to such a high volume of information available, different criteria must also be taken into consideration, such as information literacy and application usability. Nelson defines information literacy as "the ability to effectively access and evaluate information for a given need," and application usability as "the interactive environment which a software application or system provides to a user searching for information." Both, Nelson argues, is disadvantageous to the user. As aforementioned above, the volume of information available to the user makes it difficult to refine searches and is almost impossible to evaluate all the information available for a given need; as well, search engines have not been refined to the degree of being able to act in a precise and accurate manner. Web-monkeys who are able to manipulate how web-pages are brought up usually are the ones that get the most hits on their page, not because their information is the best but due to their expertise in web design and applicability. Nelson explains that this in turn produces information anxiety.

Nelson describes information anxiety as "the overwhelming feeling one gets from having too much information or being unable to find or interpret data....Information anxiety is produced by the ever-widening gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand. It is the black hole between data and knowledge, and it happens when information does not tell us what we want or need to know." This sometimes occurs when I attempt to do research on a topic that spans globally, such as nuclear proliferation. Because I want to be able to produce the best work possible, I will have a desire to use the best sources at my disposal. However, because over 10,000,000 sources are available on the topic, I will feel anxious as to how great my product will actually be.

Three Questions:

1. How can we begin to reduce the existing gap in understanding and information today?

2. What alternative ways might there be in the future in regard to researching information?

3. Where might we begin in attempting to reduce the amount of sources available? Would using an intermediary source to throw out the rubble be a feasible plan in the future, or would this conflict with First Amendment rights?

FCC extra credit: "In the beginning, there was - chaos."

2006-01-09T11:06:00.000-08:00

On the Federal Communications Commission, I found it fascinating on learning how the internet came about and its intertwining connections with various other net-based programs.

Just as broadband and cable internet is common nowadays, it was common for corporations and businesses much earlier than for the majority of the populace. As it holds now, T1 and T3 lines, much faster than broadband and cable, are the norms for corporations and businesses. This helps me believe that in the future, the internet will be so well-incorporated and so fast, loading will be virtually eliminated. This will perhaps make video conferencing much more feasible and realistic and can perhaps be viewed as true "real time," as opposed to loading up and then being choppy while conferencing. This might perpetuate international business negotiations to be taken place via the web, where one might be able to view the rest of the staff and talk as if one was in a conference room.

Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps smells and touch will also be incorporated via the internet, where you can download certain environmental aspects of a movie and turn it on while watching the movie.

However, the repercussions of such advanced technology might just as well be dangerous as helpful to society. Cyber hackers might have easier access into bank accounts, social security, background information and etc. If everything was to become internet-based and internet controlled, such as a car, hackers might hack the car and drive the person off a cliff. Thus, I feel that each step of the way towards an internet revolution, it is vital to take the necessary precautions in order to safeguard the rights of all citizens in America (and the world).

Three Questions:

1. What security measures might be taken in order to safeguard constitutional rights?

2. How might the internet be transmitted/offered to users in the future?

3. How might packet switching be further enhanced in the future?

Networks of Remediation (an emphasis on Benjamin Walter)

2006-01-09T10:45:00.000-08:00

In “Networks of Remediation,” the author cites Walter Benjamin as an important focal point where social and political dimensions cannot be further discussed without meditating on him. According to Benjamin, “…mechanical reproduction produces a fundamental change in the nature of art, a change that destroys the artwork’s “aura” by removing it from the context of ritual and tradition in which art had been historically embedded” (p. 74, Networks of Remediation). In turn, however, I would raise the question why this would be significant in the first place. Art, by definition, is an expression. Why else is the mechanical reproduction of art problematic, or seen as a dangerous? I feel that perhaps Benjamin sees mechanical reproduction of art as a threat, and that art and its range of variations are unable to standalone on its own merits if left in its old, romantic form. Moreover, I contend that if any sort of credit by anyone is afforded to it (a mechanical reproduction) as art, even though it digresses from its original form, it only seeks to elevate art, not to subsume it; in essence, a mechanical reproduction is not remediation, as perhaps Benjamin mistakes it as.

According to Benjamin, “…film technology, or mechanical reproduction in general, breaks down the aura of the work of art by eliding or erasing the distance between the work and its viewer. Removed from the cathedral or museum, the work of art is now closer to the viewer” (p. 74, Networks of Remediation). Benjamin further asserts the question, “What are we entitled to ask from a work of art in an “age of remediation”? It would seem Benjamin pushes the point that it is to get past mediation to “an aspect of reality which is from of all equipment…” (p. 74, Networks of Remediation). However, I contend that this is unnecessary, as art, regardless of equipment, is art. As mentioned, art is an expression; the tools we use to express art should not be seen as remediation or a hindrance to the means of an end. Under this same belief, then, paint brushes and canvases should also be considered “equipment,” and that art is achieved mechanically. Thus, I agree with the author, that “remediation does not destroy the aura of a work of art; instead it always refashions that aura in another form” (p. 75, Networks of Remediation).

Three questions:

1. Should remediation be considered for forms of art? When does art stop being art?

2. In film, do screenshots or freeze-frames of certain mise-en-scene (arrangement of scene on screen) count as art? Why or why not?

3. Can art be taken out of its context (i.e., the drawings on the wall of cathedrals be converted into posters) and still be considered art?

Technologies of the Third Mediamorphosis by Roger Fidler

2006-01-09T09:32:00.000-08:00

I found Roger Fidler’s “Technologies of the Third Mediamorphosis” reminiscent of today’s instant messaging. “Telegraphic news soon created readers an expectation of immediacy and a growing sense of closeness…. By collapsing the physical and psychological barriers of time and distance that had always limited human interaction, the telegraph, and later the telephone, greatly increased their users’ power to maintain relationships and to control activities at a distance” (p. 87, Fidler). This could also be said of video-conferencing and the use of instant messaging. Today, I believe audio files as well as picture files can be sent via instant messaging to the receiver, as well as an assortment of other ways of communication.

It is interesting to see how the massive influx of information in the last few decades came about. According to Fidler, today’s society can owe it due to the crisis of control that occurred in the nineteenth century as the industrial revolution began to spread across both Europe and North America (p. 107, Fidler). Because of the need to communicate over long distances in order to keep order, civility and efficiency was necessary, it was vital for both the government and corporations to create communicative methods that helped people communicate immediately and effectively.

In South Korea, in accordance to the survival principle, the majority of both teens and adults use MSN as opposed to AIM; in their minds, the more elaborate and decorative MSN has subsumed the somewhat shoddy looking AIM. This may be due to the fact that MSN supports various different languages as well as various graphical options and caters to the rest of the world whereas AIM is primarily based in the United States and used by Americans.

As well, South Korea has incorporated various functions into their cell phones, such as subway passes, remote controls, internet, banking accounts, house keys (infrared/blue tooth technology), video recording, video conferencing, digital camera, GPS navigation system, and a plethora of other over-the-top options, that may very well be incorporated into American phones in the future.

Three Questions:

1. What other forms of communication (other than telephone and IM) do you believe exist, and how might these forms of communication take place in the near-future?

2. Other than eyes and ears, how might humans be able to communicate in the future?

3. How might video conferencing be taken a step further in the future?

As We May Think by Vannevar Bush

2006-01-09T08:37:00.000-08:00

I found Bush's article, "As We May Think," fascinating by his keen prediction of his era's future as well as going into present-day's future as well.

I feel that the greatest element of Vannevar's article is his realization that the descriptions that he has given to “memex” and its possible revolutionary breakthrough in the future has occurred. Though "[technical] difficulties of all sorts have been ignored... also ignored are means as yet unknown which may come any day to accelerate technical progress as violently as did the advent of the thermionic tube" (p. 12, Vannevar). If Vannevar were alive today, he would surely be praised for his observation into the future, and he in turn would praise Bill Gates for creating the operation system known as Windows. This technical breakthrough, helping PC users go from MS-DOS to a much more maneuverable operation system opened the window for users of all ages to jump on the computer revolution bandwagon.

Moreover, Vannevar attempts to ameliorate the problem of being bogged down as specialization constantly occurs by using a device called “memex,” which in function, closely resembles today's computers and internet. For an article written in 1945, I find it very impressive that Vannevar was so closely able to describe today's existing computers and working internet. Though his description seems somewhat more complex and tedious, he is not far off from what exists today: "The physician, puzzled by its patient's reactions, strikes the trail established in studying an earlier similar case, and runs rapidly through analogous case histories, with side references to the classics for the pertinent anatomy and histology" (p. 12, Vannevar). In accordance with Vannevar's prediction, physicians and doctors of all kinds have various information and tools at the touch of their fingertips, literally; by being able to access computers, networks of various kinds as well as the internet, they are able to perform tasks and procedures that would have been impossible in 1945.

Furthermore, most likely along the lines of Descartes, Vannevar realizes that "All our steps in creating or absorbing material of the record proceed through one of the senses - the tactile when we touch keys, the oral when we speak or listen, the visual when we read. Is it not possible that some day the path may be established more directly" (p. 12, Vannevar)? Vannevar then goes on to describe the electrical vibrations that are transmitted through the eyes to the brain, via the optic nerve. Vannevar compares this with the electrical vibrations that occur in the cable of a television set. In essence, I feel that Vannevar is arguing the possibility of unlimited information through the synthesis of a computer and a human, or, a man and machine, i.e., cyborg. Though farfetched now, I feel that by the year 2045, a Matrix-esque existence may not be far from the truth. Somewhere in the near future, someone will discover how to incorporate electrical knowledge to the human brain; this may indefinitely resemble the likes of The Matrix, or perhaps take a step further and resemble a Japanese animation called, The Ghost in the Shell. In this animation, cyborgs (the incorporation of machine to man) are common, and the main character later transfers her “existence” from her physical body to the internet. This is exactly how I envision the internet; I feel that some may be able to directly transfer their “memory” to the information super-highway. Much of it is based off of science-fiction, of course. However, I feel that it is a possibility that may exist in the future. Vannevar asks, “Must we always transform to mechanical movements in order to proceed from one electrical phenomenon to another?” I find it scary to see how closely the Wachowski brothers took this to heart.

Three Questions:

1. What new inventions do you believe might come into existence in the future?

2. How might the internet be used in the future?

3. How do you see technology being incorporated into every day life in the future?

Com 300 Testing Testing...

2006-01-04T12:42:00.000-08:00

Yeah!