When I first entered this class I was afraid to blog and to share my opinion on the readings. I don't feel like I participated enough. However, I enjoyed all the debates and constructive criticism on the readings from my classmates. My classmates helped me understand the readings more and helped me gain a better perspective on the material. My classmates opinions many times even influenced my own. I feel that this class really helped me express myself and really helped me gain knowledge about things that our happening in the world that affect me but that I never gave much thought to.
The media is an essential part of our lives. We are around media everyday. It influences the way we think, speak and view life. This class opened up my ideas to the affects of social media and helped me view my generation as one sucked in by this unrealistic realm. Prior to this class I did not have a Facebook. Even though sometimes the class readings and some of our discussions further steered me away from having a Facebook, this class gave me the courage to open up my Facebook again and not be a afraid to express my opinions and be one more face to the world. ( weird how that worked considering we did read many books this semester that discouraged us from using FB) However, the knowledge I have gained from the Digital Networks class is one that I will always remember. Digital Networks Class topics were topics that I would end up going home and have conversations about.
This course also introduced me to many people prior to this class I never knew before. Working with my classmates was a great experience because of the way we were able to view each others ways of thinking. I never really knew about blogging before this class. Now I find myself looking at other blogs aside from this class and becoming interested in a lot of the ways people think. Sometimes I fell behind with blogging but I can successfully say I caught up on all my blogs. Blogging was a great experience. I think blogging is an excellent resource and a positive one in terms of the media. I think that it is safe to say that blogging definitely had an impact in my life. I hope to share what I learned to others one day and maybe blog in the future once this class is completed.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Shallows ( 144-End)
During class we spoke about an idea that Carr points out about the media making us less compassionate. I thought this idea was very interesting. I must say that I agree with this idea. I really liked how we linked the death of Osama Bin Laden to this idea. I feel that the US did well in gaining justice for those that died in the 9/11 attacks however is it morally right to take another human's life? They killed Osama which shows us that they never really had the intention of taking him to trial....
This class really gave me a lot to think about in terms of our connection to the reading and Carr's argument that the media makes us less emotional and less compassionate. I think that this is true. I think that yes Osama did a lot of horrible things but the media does make us less compassionate about a lot of the things that go on in the world.
The media feeds us reasons to be less emotional. It pushes our buttons to not think as much deeper into the issue emotional wise.
" theres another, even deeper reason why our nervous systems are so quick to merege with our computer. Evolution has imbued our brains with a powerdul social instinct, which, as Jason Mitchell ( Harvard's head of neuroscience lab) entails a set of processes for interffering what those around us are thinking and feeling." ( 213)
In the last section Carr focuses on the Internet's affect on our emotions and its large impact. I thought this book was extremely interesting because I must say that I feel the Internet has made us slower thinkers. We are so dependant on the source because we no longer have to remember things as much as before. With a click of a button we can get all the information from sites like Google we need and educate ourselves on pretty much anything. This book made me think about generation and what is there to come. Will future generations be less intelligent? This book served as food for thought. It really opened up my mind to think about the Internet more critically and the affect on our brains. After reading this book I felt almost as if my mind has been frying all this time. Interesting Ideas and a lot to think about...
This class really gave me a lot to think about in terms of our connection to the reading and Carr's argument that the media makes us less emotional and less compassionate. I think that this is true. I think that yes Osama did a lot of horrible things but the media does make us less compassionate about a lot of the things that go on in the world.
The media feeds us reasons to be less emotional. It pushes our buttons to not think as much deeper into the issue emotional wise.
" theres another, even deeper reason why our nervous systems are so quick to merege with our computer. Evolution has imbued our brains with a powerdul social instinct, which, as Jason Mitchell ( Harvard's head of neuroscience lab) entails a set of processes for interffering what those around us are thinking and feeling." ( 213)
In the last section Carr focuses on the Internet's affect on our emotions and its large impact. I thought this book was extremely interesting because I must say that I feel the Internet has made us slower thinkers. We are so dependant on the source because we no longer have to remember things as much as before. With a click of a button we can get all the information from sites like Google we need and educate ourselves on pretty much anything. This book made me think about generation and what is there to come. Will future generations be less intelligent? This book served as food for thought. It really opened up my mind to think about the Internet more critically and the affect on our brains. After reading this book I felt almost as if my mind has been frying all this time. Interesting Ideas and a lot to think about...
The Shallows (58-143)
In this section of the book Carr argues:
1) Books change the way we think and analyze material
" the growing ability availability of books fired the public desire for literacy, and the expansion of literacy further stimulated the demand for books" ( 70)
2) Carr criticizes how easily distracted we become with computer programs. examples YouTube videos etc
3) discusses the use of e books and the potential affect it might have on authors who try and publish books. We read articles online more than we actually read books the affect of this is something he discusses.
" the net commands our attention with far greater insistence than our television or radio or morning newspaper ever did." (117)
4) He makes a point about the human brain and its connection to the Internet being bad for us. He connects this to our ability to retain information. The impact on our memory. " other studies suggest that the kind of mental calisthenics we engage in online may lead to a small expansion in the capacity of our working memory." (139) He gives a series of study examples.
However, I am left to wonder? can the Internet be this bad? I don't think I have a memory loss because I use the Internet everyday? How does every one else feel about Carr's points? I do see how the Internet can be detrimental to us sometimes though.
1) Books change the way we think and analyze material
" the growing ability availability of books fired the public desire for literacy, and the expansion of literacy further stimulated the demand for books" ( 70)
2) Carr criticizes how easily distracted we become with computer programs. examples YouTube videos etc
3) discusses the use of e books and the potential affect it might have on authors who try and publish books. We read articles online more than we actually read books the affect of this is something he discusses.
" the net commands our attention with far greater insistence than our television or radio or morning newspaper ever did." (117)
4) He makes a point about the human brain and its connection to the Internet being bad for us. He connects this to our ability to retain information. The impact on our memory. " other studies suggest that the kind of mental calisthenics we engage in online may lead to a small expansion in the capacity of our working memory." (139) He gives a series of study examples.
However, I am left to wonder? can the Internet be this bad? I don't think I have a memory loss because I use the Internet everyday? How does every one else feel about Carr's points? I do see how the Internet can be detrimental to us sometimes though.
The Shallows "1-57"
"Every technology is an expression of human will. Through our tools, we seek to expand our power and control over our circumstances-over nature, over time and distance, over one another. " (44)
First off, I must point out one of my personal favorite sections in the first part of the book. I really liked when Carr spoke about Nietzsche. I'm reading Nietzsche for another class with Jodi Dean and while reading Shallows gave me a whole different perspective on what initially thought of Nietzsche. It gave a different insight. He talks about Nietzsche way of thinking and his way of writing as an affect of his thoughts. I thought this was cool considering what I have learned about Nietzsche this semester. “You are right Nietzsche replied. Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts" (19)
I really liked the connection of Digital Networks to my Political theory course.
However, aside from this I was able to understand some of Carr's points. I think that a lot of his arguments were accurate and things that I had thought about briefly before on my own. However, never with as much depth and analysis as Carr's book feeds us. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the arguments that Carr makes. The Internet to us seems like this great reliable source. Thanks to the Internet we have learned so much and it has made our life so much easier. However, while making our lives easier it also has "dumbed" us down. Yes, I agree!
“The intellectual ethic of a technology is rarely recognized by its inventors. They are usually so intent on solving particular problems or untangling some thorny scientific or engineering dilemma that they don't see the broader implications of their work. The users of the technology are oblivious to its ethic" (45)
Before the Internet we had more time to think and come up with more concrete opinions on our own ideas. We did not rely on Google to give us all the information that we needed. We no longer think for ourselves because someone else is thinking for us. (GOOGLE)
The first part of the book was interesting because Carr talks about humans becoming almost brainless creatures who are losing their sense of self because of the Internet. The Internet allows us to read in a whole different way. We understand material less. We are distracted by everything the Internet provides for us.emails, Face book, Google, Wikipedia. Our reading comprehension has decreased and our attention span has decreased. I feel that personally the Internet is the reason why I feel I have A.D.D. (attention deficit disorder) I think online has made us less able to think because we are so distracted.
Carr understands how essential and great the Internet can be. However, his concern revolves around how it actually hurts us. He feels it is important that we save ourselves from becoming the mindless robotic like humans the Internet is constructing us to be. Technology takes a huge toll in our life.
" the oral world of our distant ancestors may well have had emotional and intuitive depths that we no longer appreciate" (56) We no longer appreciate the way we used to learn without the media and without the technology that is so strong a part of our world. We are lost and further sucked into this realm that kills our brain activity.
First off, I must point out one of my personal favorite sections in the first part of the book. I really liked when Carr spoke about Nietzsche. I'm reading Nietzsche for another class with Jodi Dean and while reading Shallows gave me a whole different perspective on what initially thought of Nietzsche. It gave a different insight. He talks about Nietzsche way of thinking and his way of writing as an affect of his thoughts. I thought this was cool considering what I have learned about Nietzsche this semester. “You are right Nietzsche replied. Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts" (19)
I really liked the connection of Digital Networks to my Political theory course.
However, aside from this I was able to understand some of Carr's points. I think that a lot of his arguments were accurate and things that I had thought about briefly before on my own. However, never with as much depth and analysis as Carr's book feeds us. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the arguments that Carr makes. The Internet to us seems like this great reliable source. Thanks to the Internet we have learned so much and it has made our life so much easier. However, while making our lives easier it also has "dumbed" us down. Yes, I agree!
“The intellectual ethic of a technology is rarely recognized by its inventors. They are usually so intent on solving particular problems or untangling some thorny scientific or engineering dilemma that they don't see the broader implications of their work. The users of the technology are oblivious to its ethic" (45)
Before the Internet we had more time to think and come up with more concrete opinions on our own ideas. We did not rely on Google to give us all the information that we needed. We no longer think for ourselves because someone else is thinking for us. (GOOGLE)
The first part of the book was interesting because Carr talks about humans becoming almost brainless creatures who are losing their sense of self because of the Internet. The Internet allows us to read in a whole different way. We understand material less. We are distracted by everything the Internet provides for us.emails, Face book, Google, Wikipedia. Our reading comprehension has decreased and our attention span has decreased. I feel that personally the Internet is the reason why I feel I have A.D.D. (attention deficit disorder) I think online has made us less able to think because we are so distracted.
Carr understands how essential and great the Internet can be. However, his concern revolves around how it actually hurts us. He feels it is important that we save ourselves from becoming the mindless robotic like humans the Internet is constructing us to be. Technology takes a huge toll in our life.
" the oral world of our distant ancestors may well have had emotional and intuitive depths that we no longer appreciate" (56) We no longer appreciate the way we used to learn without the media and without the technology that is so strong a part of our world. We are lost and further sucked into this realm that kills our brain activity.
WikiLeaks- Good or Bad?
WikiLeaks: "WikiLeaks is an independent, non-profit online media organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources. The WikiLeaks website was launched in 2006 by the Sunshine Press."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/wikileaks.html
I think the presentation on Wikileaks was pretty interesting. I really liked that we were able to discuss the negative and positives of Wikileaks. I wrote down some of the arguments that were made and I thought the class had some interesting points.
Good: Wikileaks are good because they give us first hand information on things that are occuring in our world that without wikileaks we would not know about. Some of this information is important and we need to know these things.
Bad: How do we know if wikileaks are realible? They might give us the wrong information and cause the country to get false information that might lead to a bad reaction? Paranoid country.
I really enjoyed the debate that went on in class. People gave some pretty strong and interesting arguments on how they felt. I was on the bad side where my group argued against wikileaks. However, personally I think that Wikileaks are positive. Wikileaks have provided very important information to the people that without this source we would not be aware of. It is our right to know what is going on in our world and wikileaks does a good job at disclosing this information.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/wikileaks.html
I think the presentation on Wikileaks was pretty interesting. I really liked that we were able to discuss the negative and positives of Wikileaks. I wrote down some of the arguments that were made and I thought the class had some interesting points.
Good: Wikileaks are good because they give us first hand information on things that are occuring in our world that without wikileaks we would not know about. Some of this information is important and we need to know these things.
Bad: How do we know if wikileaks are realible? They might give us the wrong information and cause the country to get false information that might lead to a bad reaction? Paranoid country.
I really enjoyed the debate that went on in class. People gave some pretty strong and interesting arguments on how they felt. I was on the bad side where my group argued against wikileaks. However, personally I think that Wikileaks are positive. Wikileaks have provided very important information to the people that without this source we would not be aware of. It is our right to know what is going on in our world and wikileaks does a good job at disclosing this information.
Understanding Bifo Helpful Class Notes
The Movement of Autonomy
laziness
points:
account of generations-displaced class thinking
people tend to make statements
pathologies-affiliated with the connected generations
we learn more about language from a machine, less from our mothers.
Precarious Rhapsody:
1) Idealogy Critique: dominant view, "what does this description block us from
2) Media Ecology: complex information mileau, what can flourish, what can't flourish
3) Social Studies/Science
technology (interactive with it)
Bifo: primary concern : our brains connected to communication etc
media activist ( semio capitalisn) ( signs and capitalism)
fusion of media/capitalism
poetry meets capitalism
language= site of confrontation
1968= creative explosion/ first generation of mass education
(1977) unemployment, oil, shock, revolution
laziness
points:
account of generations-displaced class thinking
people tend to make statements
pathologies-affiliated with the connected generations
we learn more about language from a machine, less from our mothers.
Precarious Rhapsody:
1) Idealogy Critique: dominant view, "what does this description block us from
2) Media Ecology: complex information mileau, what can flourish, what can't flourish
3) Social Studies/Science
technology (interactive with it)
Bifo: primary concern : our brains connected to communication etc
media activist ( semio capitalisn) ( signs and capitalism)
fusion of media/capitalism
poetry meets capitalism
language= site of confrontation
1968= creative explosion/ first generation of mass education
(1977) unemployment, oil, shock, revolution
Precarious Rhapsody (4-8) "Autonomy/ Capital/Labor"
Autonomy and its connection to capitalism
The development of an "Evil Desire"
Autonomy = the right to self govern
Bifo explains that " autonomy is the Independence of social time from the temporarily of capitalism" ( Bifo 75)
"This is the meaning of refusal of work. It means quite simply: I don't want to go to work because I prefer to sleep. But this laziness is the source of intelligence, of technology, of progress. Autonomy is the self-regulation of the social body in its Independence and in its interaction with the disciplinary norm." (75)
I was a bit confused in terms of what Bifo was trying to argue. However, I was able to understand his argument on autonomy and its affect on society. According to Bifo our right to self regulation allows for the rise of a lazy generation. Technology creates a rise of human dependency on the media and its advances.
However, I was able to come to the conclusion that although I previously thought that Bifo was attacking autonomy, he is actually discussing how things that are good ( in terms of people being able to have more power) things can actually go bad.
Flexibilazition benefiting capital?
Workers aren't getting hired because technology replaces the massive need for work? This is what I got from his argument. This was a scary point considering the generation we are a part of. Each day government funded programs are being cut. People are making less money because their aren't enough jobs. Technology replaces the physical worker because it is working to increase profit without really paying anybody to work. Think about it this way? This may not be the best example but its an example that came to my mind while reading this chapter. Technology replaces human labor (Example: we no longer need people to sell and distribute soda's we have machines who we can put the money in and it throws out cans of soda) This isn't the best example but it is the same idea of what the media does. A persons job is lost because the machine replaces the person. It is the same thing with computers. It is good to move away from capital. However, isn't it bad if people are losing jobs over this? How will people survive. Technology doesn't have a problem with lower pay and doesn't have the problems humans complain about..I think this was Bifo's strongest point and the one I agree with him the most on.
The development of an "Evil Desire"
Autonomy = the right to self govern
Bifo explains that " autonomy is the Independence of social time from the temporarily of capitalism" ( Bifo 75)
"This is the meaning of refusal of work. It means quite simply: I don't want to go to work because I prefer to sleep. But this laziness is the source of intelligence, of technology, of progress. Autonomy is the self-regulation of the social body in its Independence and in its interaction with the disciplinary norm." (75)
I was a bit confused in terms of what Bifo was trying to argue. However, I was able to understand his argument on autonomy and its affect on society. According to Bifo our right to self regulation allows for the rise of a lazy generation. Technology creates a rise of human dependency on the media and its advances.
However, I was able to come to the conclusion that although I previously thought that Bifo was attacking autonomy, he is actually discussing how things that are good ( in terms of people being able to have more power) things can actually go bad.
Flexibilazition benefiting capital?
Workers aren't getting hired because technology replaces the massive need for work? This is what I got from his argument. This was a scary point considering the generation we are a part of. Each day government funded programs are being cut. People are making less money because their aren't enough jobs. Technology replaces the physical worker because it is working to increase profit without really paying anybody to work. Think about it this way? This may not be the best example but its an example that came to my mind while reading this chapter. Technology replaces human labor (Example: we no longer need people to sell and distribute soda's we have machines who we can put the money in and it throws out cans of soda) This isn't the best example but it is the same idea of what the media does. A persons job is lost because the machine replaces the person. It is the same thing with computers. It is good to move away from capital. However, isn't it bad if people are losing jobs over this? How will people survive. Technology doesn't have a problem with lower pay and doesn't have the problems humans complain about..I think this was Bifo's strongest point and the one I agree with him the most on.
The Viral Me- Devin Friedman
I really enjoyed reading about this character Jiggity. It seemed like a pretty comical article at first. However, it scared me a little when I read about this remote controller that can give us everything we want at the time we want. It made me think about how lazy humans are becoming. We really need a remote to do everything for us other than walk our dog? WOW! What has our generation come to? I bet that if there was some kind of robot that walked our dogs for us human's would buy it.
Jiggity's plan to invent the iphone into this device that does everything for us is key example
( EEVOX SOCIAL ELEMENT)In this article he even brings up a point about us being able to see our friends all the time and always becoming aware of their location and your friends aware of what your doing on your personal time.
Friedman argues that people love to be the center of attention and love to be around their friends. Friedman makes it seem that if we are able to stalk each other that we will be happy. I think that some of his ideas were insane! I would not like to know what my friends are doing all the time and I would not want them to know where I am. I feel like some of the ideas he brings up take away from our individuality. It takes away from stepping back and just being alone sometimes. Everything about our lives should not be revolved around technology or iphone apps.
This article makes me think further into the superficial world we are being sucked into. We have become a part of this world that is willing to watch our every move.
It's unfortunate. Friedman talks about his own experience with social media and states he
"gave two sites access to my credit cards so I could share my purchases with my friends. I did my best to check in wherever I went on Foursquare. And what it all made me feel, mostly, was stupid. And anxious that I didn't have enough people following me and then that I was the kind of person who wants people to follow him."- Friedman's point helped me conclude in the idea that we place so much personal information into social fields in exchange for friends and followers. We have come to believe that social websites help us gain new friends, stay further connected and help us become more confident. However, this false idea that we feed of comes back to hurt us in its process. As we can see the author himself talks about feeling anxious when he didn't have people following because he wanted attention and was not getting it. The author gave his credit card to this site so that he can share information with his friends.
This article shows us the extremes that people take in order to fit in and feel more social. Our new generation and technology is creating their own trap. We are trapping ourselves and allowing the web to further suck us in through advances in technology that tend to make us think that we are important.
Precarious Rhapsody- Franco "Bifo" Berandi (Ch 1-3 ) " The relationship between labor and capital"
Precarious Rhapsody = Non Secure, Non Stable free source
"The person is free, sure. But his time is enslaved. His liberty is a juiridical fiction to which nothing in concrete daily life corresponds." ( Bifo 33)
In these first chapters Bifo gives us a lot of information on history. He talks about the cultural revolutions of the new era. He talks about the advances of our era and how far we have come. However, Bifo makes a point about capital. He argues that capital advances have allowed for the expolitation of workers who put hard labor into the work they produce. So, bascically what I got from what Bifo was saying here was that although the internet is a major advancement it allows for the expolitation of those who create such a useful tool.
Bifo makes an excellent point when he states " that time does not really belong to them, because it is separated from the social existence of the people who make it available to the combinative cyber-productive circuit" (33) This reminded me of the presentation we saw on Google. Google has created a work enviroment that seems free and filled with a laid back working enviroment. However, Google's creation of its work enviroment is really just controlling the workers. They exloit their workers by making them work long hours. They manipulate them by taking away their hours and making them stay at work " for what seems like easy free fun time."
Bifo states that the " average salary on the global level is hardly sufficient to buy the indispensible means for the mere survival of a person whose time is at the service of capital" (33)
Bifo was concerned with the amount of labor put into capital. The media is a new way to exploit the individual. Everyday we are further sucked into this system whose reality is not a good one. The first chapters introduce us to a rather dark side of media labor.
"The person is free, sure. But his time is enslaved. His liberty is a juiridical fiction to which nothing in concrete daily life corresponds." ( Bifo 33)
In these first chapters Bifo gives us a lot of information on history. He talks about the cultural revolutions of the new era. He talks about the advances of our era and how far we have come. However, Bifo makes a point about capital. He argues that capital advances have allowed for the expolitation of workers who put hard labor into the work they produce. So, bascically what I got from what Bifo was saying here was that although the internet is a major advancement it allows for the expolitation of those who create such a useful tool.
Bifo makes an excellent point when he states " that time does not really belong to them, because it is separated from the social existence of the people who make it available to the combinative cyber-productive circuit" (33) This reminded me of the presentation we saw on Google. Google has created a work enviroment that seems free and filled with a laid back working enviroment. However, Google's creation of its work enviroment is really just controlling the workers. They exloit their workers by making them work long hours. They manipulate them by taking away their hours and making them stay at work " for what seems like easy free fun time."
Bifo states that the " average salary on the global level is hardly sufficient to buy the indispensible means for the mere survival of a person whose time is at the service of capital" (33)
Bifo was concerned with the amount of labor put into capital. The media is a new way to exploit the individual. Everyday we are further sucked into this system whose reality is not a good one. The first chapters introduce us to a rather dark side of media labor.
Google "Helpful Or Harmful" Bad vs Good
I never really thought of Google as a bad or good thing. Google has become such a major part of my life that I don't remember days in which I wasn't finding information on Google. Everytime I need to find the definition of something or simply want to educate myself on pretty much anything I know that I can rely on Google for the information that I need.
When looking up information online I never really stop to think on the negative aspects of the source. Google isn't a threat to me considering how much information I have gained from the source. I always find what I am looking for and always have options. Google was able to think for me. I never had to wonder about anything because the information was simply available.
The Googilization of Everything reading opened my eyes to a whole new perspective on Google. Google might just be the all knowing sibling every one never really asked for or expected to come into their life. Finding information on Google has become so prominent that people use "googling" as an actual term. Google has become a part of our everyday life and is the definition of our own virtual dictionary. Google has gained so much power in our world that it has taken control of the informative websites that survive and those that will not make it to popularity. Google serves as a monopoly for the web. It picks which sites will make it and which will not be popular at all. Google organizes sites by importance and popularity. It overwhelmes us with the amount of choices we have. As a daily Google user I admit to simply picking the first few choices Google suggests I look at.
Google has become a monopoly in terms of the World Wide Web. The article talks about how Google takes information from us in order to advertise. Google has its own lock in system that stores our information without asking us for permission. Google's interest is to advertise to us information based on the information they gain from our searches. It is a mechanism to suck us in deeper in the World Wide Web. If we thought Facebook was bad? What difference is Google doing? The article made me aware of how powerful Google has become in our world.
Presentation:
GOOGLE
I really liked this presentation. I really liked the video that we saw about the Google work enviroment. I thought it was great. It almost made me want to work for Google. I couldn't believe that workers actually live their and treat their job as a home. The job seemed so easy and a lot of fun when in reality we know it is a lot of work and is a 24 hour job. They make the work enviroment so comfortable.
I liked the contrast between the positive aspects of Google and the negative. I think this group picked the correct videos to show us.
The presentation and the article made me see Google in a whole different light. I couldn't help but wonder what else Google would take control of without our permission. What else would we not have control of? It's a scary thought considering how great of a resource I see Google to be? Is Google really thinking for us? We are further locked in...
When looking up information online I never really stop to think on the negative aspects of the source. Google isn't a threat to me considering how much information I have gained from the source. I always find what I am looking for and always have options. Google was able to think for me. I never had to wonder about anything because the information was simply available.
The Googilization of Everything reading opened my eyes to a whole new perspective on Google. Google might just be the all knowing sibling every one never really asked for or expected to come into their life. Finding information on Google has become so prominent that people use "googling" as an actual term. Google has become a part of our everyday life and is the definition of our own virtual dictionary. Google has gained so much power in our world that it has taken control of the informative websites that survive and those that will not make it to popularity. Google serves as a monopoly for the web. It picks which sites will make it and which will not be popular at all. Google organizes sites by importance and popularity. It overwhelmes us with the amount of choices we have. As a daily Google user I admit to simply picking the first few choices Google suggests I look at.
Google has become a monopoly in terms of the World Wide Web. The article talks about how Google takes information from us in order to advertise. Google has its own lock in system that stores our information without asking us for permission. Google's interest is to advertise to us information based on the information they gain from our searches. It is a mechanism to suck us in deeper in the World Wide Web. If we thought Facebook was bad? What difference is Google doing? The article made me aware of how powerful Google has become in our world.
Presentation:
I really liked this presentation. I really liked the video that we saw about the Google work enviroment. I thought it was great. It almost made me want to work for Google. I couldn't believe that workers actually live their and treat their job as a home. The job seemed so easy and a lot of fun when in reality we know it is a lot of work and is a 24 hour job. They make the work enviroment so comfortable.
I liked the contrast between the positive aspects of Google and the negative. I think this group picked the correct videos to show us.
The presentation and the article made me see Google in a whole different light. I couldn't help but wonder what else Google would take control of without our permission. What else would we not have control of? It's a scary thought considering how great of a resource I see Google to be? Is Google really thinking for us? We are further locked in...
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Open Source
Open Source:
The good and the bad
The open source makes the internet open to opinion and user contribution. The open source allows for users to be able to change the design and improve it depending on what they personally feel is appropriate.
Cathedrals and Bazaar
à Cathedrals: structured for people
à Bazaar: (open to all) anyone can comment and have an opinion
After reading both Lanier’s critique of open source and Raymond’s I was torn between the two ideas. I didn’t really pick a side because they both came up with great views on how they felt the open source affects us. Lanier focuses on the loss individual creativity and Raymond and how open source has room for improvement and benefits us every day.
Raymond points out important ways in which software is open to improvement. Open software breaks up commercial group power. There is not one program in control of all. Any one is able to contribute an idea that will better the program. We have the power and the freedom to alter and change anything. Open sources produce better results and are more productive. He states “every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.” Raymond defends this “bazaar ideology.” The open source puts together the ideas of a global community that can enhance the experience of the source.
“Digital Maoism” =(communist idea/abolishes private property/equality)
Lanier talks about the loss of reliable information due to an open source. Yes, there is an overwhelming amount of information on the internet. However, the open source makes it unreliable and does not challenge individual creativity. Open source reduces productivity. People no longer feel the need to go out of their way to think on their own about an idea. They easily rely on someone else’s idea that may or may not be completely credible. Open source opens a world of information sharing. It does help people become more informed.
Lanier gives an excellent example. Lanier talks about Wikipedia and his own experience with the source in order to defend his claim. Wikipedia is a very informative source and serves the needs of thousands globally. However, information on the source can easily be altered and changed to just about anything. What gives us certainty that the person writing on a particular topic is not just some random dude who had nothing better to do?
Lanier talks about his own Wikipedia link where he is defined to be a film director. His Wikipedia is corrected and within a day it goes back to saying film director. This is a perfect example of how people are free to change information making it less reliable and are able to change information about someone else.
The Open Source brings about a mixture of interpretations. Lanier and Raymond had their own theories and so did many others. The Open source is open to be discussed for its positive elements and its negative elements. On one hand it makes getting information online more accessible and on the other hand can bring down creativity and individuality.
Class
Wheres Prof Dean?
Class on Thursday went pretty well (the short of time I was there.) I must admit I left early because I didn’t have a laptop so I wasn’t able to blog about the class. I was confused and lost and felt empty without my laptop. I didn’t stay for the whole class time although I listened to some of my classmates views and opinions on the readings. I already knew that you might not come to class because you didn’t come to my morning class. We were confused as well in our first class when we saw someone else come in and give us a lecture on the reading material. However, the time I was there I thought my classmates handled the class very well. The class was concerned about you watching us which kind of scared me into staying as well. I was there for most of the class but left early. I think it was great that while I was there a discussion went on about the material. People were frantic about blogging and what to put on their blog but pulled it together.
A point about losing trust in you was brought up in class. I don’t think I lost trust in you as a professor. I almost felt challenged to learn something new. What would I do if my professor doesn’t come to class? I wanted to hear how my classmates interpreted the readings and how they felt about it. I like to hear what my classmates have to say because it helps me better understand the material. Many times it helps me view the material in a different light depending on a classmate’s interpretation that can be completely different from mine.. I was able to listen to my classmates closely and my skills working with other people improved. After the class I asked my classmates how things went and they gave me a heads up on what they discussed. They informed on how hectic it was to try and blog at first and how they later pulled it together.
ISPY: Chapters 6 and 7
Chapter 6: I-WAR
"One result is that centralized forms of social control and risk management associated with the welfare state are replaced by the niche markets for security."
Andrejevic talks about the 9/11 events and our war on terrorism. In this chapter he links the terrorist events to ways used to trick the American people into giving up privacy in exchange for safety. After the war on terrorism people became fearful and were scared of another Terrorist attack. As we all know 9/11 was a devastating event in American history. People were constantly reminded of this tragedy, so that they could be able to provide as much information as they felt possible in order to clear their identity. The government used terrorism as the basis for why they should have access to people's personal information. The government saw interactivity and surveillance as a tactic to fight terrorism and fight war. Having our information was a way in which we secured our rights for protection. In order to do this we gave up personal info.
"The novel element of the so called war on terror was that the enemy's weaponry took familiar form of passenger jets, cars, computer code, and even the daily mail, technologies of communication and transportation."<--- Fear target in order to make people okay with giving out their information. Terrorism is an excuse to invade our private lives. There are things that we probably don’t want people to know that because someone is watching us they know.
Chapter 7: I-Politics
We give the government a lot of liberty when it comes to using our information. We all want to feel safe and secure. In this chapter Andrejevic touches on the politics of interactivity and the role it plays. He names one of the sections in this chapter "The Political Promise of New Media" where states “the mobilization of the promise of interactivity comes into its own in the realm of politics-the realm from which the popular reception of new media as tangentially democratic is drawn." Andrejevic touches on the idea of Americans having a blind eye towards the way that we are being watched. We allow the government to tap into our conversations and save records of our internet searches if they have too for a “better America.” However, we have no privacy because everything we do is closely being watched. The internet allows us to be more democratic however this is only an illusion because there is still a limit the government puts on the things we research. They can intervene.
Andrejevic does touch on the fact that the media is democratic because it is becoming easier to gain information every day. However, politicians use the media as ways to gain voters. The information that we put online allow politicians to target us. They try to influence us in order to follow them because they have a better idea of our interests and ideas due to the information we provide. Andrejevic talks about the government being able to track down our phone calls. The government makes us so fearful we are willing to give up our information. We do this to stay in the clear and for our nation’s security.
"One result is that centralized forms of social control and risk management associated with the welfare state are replaced by the niche markets for security."
Andrejevic talks about the 9/11 events and our war on terrorism. In this chapter he links the terrorist events to ways used to trick the American people into giving up privacy in exchange for safety. After the war on terrorism people became fearful and were scared of another Terrorist attack. As we all know 9/11 was a devastating event in American history. People were constantly reminded of this tragedy, so that they could be able to provide as much information as they felt possible in order to clear their identity. The government used terrorism as the basis for why they should have access to people's personal information. The government saw interactivity and surveillance as a tactic to fight terrorism and fight war. Having our information was a way in which we secured our rights for protection. In order to do this we gave up personal info.
"The novel element of the so called war on terror was that the enemy's weaponry took familiar form of passenger jets, cars, computer code, and even the daily mail, technologies of communication and transportation."<--- Fear target in order to make people okay with giving out their information. Terrorism is an excuse to invade our private lives. There are things that we probably don’t want people to know that because someone is watching us they know.
Chapter 7: I-Politics
We give the government a lot of liberty when it comes to using our information. We all want to feel safe and secure. In this chapter Andrejevic touches on the politics of interactivity and the role it plays. He names one of the sections in this chapter "The Political Promise of New Media" where states “the mobilization of the promise of interactivity comes into its own in the realm of politics-the realm from which the popular reception of new media as tangentially democratic is drawn." Andrejevic touches on the idea of Americans having a blind eye towards the way that we are being watched. We allow the government to tap into our conversations and save records of our internet searches if they have too for a “better America.” However, we have no privacy because everything we do is closely being watched. The internet allows us to be more democratic however this is only an illusion because there is still a limit the government puts on the things we research. They can intervene.
Andrejevic does touch on the fact that the media is democratic because it is becoming easier to gain information every day. However, politicians use the media as ways to gain voters. The information that we put online allow politicians to target us. They try to influence us in order to follow them because they have a better idea of our interests and ideas due to the information we provide. Andrejevic talks about the government being able to track down our phone calls. The government makes us so fearful we are willing to give up our information. We do this to stay in the clear and for our nation’s security.
Mark Andrevejic I-SPY part 1
"The promise of interactivity is that viewers can be cultural producers as well as consumers-that furthermore, their participatory consumption can be creative and fulfilling"
----> Digital Enclosure: " the creation of interactive realm wherein every action and transaction generates information about itself"
"meant to evoke the ;amid enclosure movement associated with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the process whereby over time communal land was subjected to private control"
Thoughts :
First of, reading this book is very interesting. Apart from loving the eye on the cover of the book I find points the author makes interesting. His theory on Internet surveillance had an impact on me.
A privacy concern that's almost scary to read. Reading a lot of the books we have read for class this so far has been the one that has provided me with the most concern. I have never really thought about the POWER and the INTERACTIVE era aspect of the Internet. He brings up many points on Internet control that as consumers we don't really focus on. I don't see it as people watching me but rather just a source of entertainment. This book served as an eye opener.
In the first few chapters he discusses geo-based technology and the use of the wireless network for all in San Francisco. Although, this is great because people are able to have access to the Internet everywhere he points out some of the negative aspects of this surveillance and power that rises with how accessible the Internet has become. People usually look unto google for information or to purchase items. Google gives us links to or ads to grasp the consumers attention based on what they already know the consumer has looked up or recently purchased. ( we never told them to advertise anything for us however they still do)
The book made me aware of the one thing that I am the most concerned about! Privacy! Does Google even have a right to know my location! Nothing today is actually really private. We have cell phones in which we now openly admit our location (I couldn't stop thinking about this while reading the first chapters: Face book now has a feature that allows you to check in to the area that you are located.) Andrejevic makes the point that interactivity simply means the loss of initial freedoms. We are tracked no matter what we do online. "This book argues that the developyment of the promise of interactivity in commercial and political contexts underwrites, participation in top-down forms of management and control rather than in democratic self governance." We gave up our rights to privacy once we accept this technology.
However, I found it interesting that as I perceived through the next chapter as he talks about the Internet culture and its great impact on us. Andrevejic points out something that triggered me. He talks about Google becoming a verb and a proper noun over time. We generate information about ourselves through sites like Google making it easy for people to stalk each other and be informed about the others life. The Internet has become a world filled with our most personal information. I liked the example that Andrejevic used about the women who stalked her lover online thanks to sites such as Google. He goes as far as to talk about parents tracking their kids through phones GPS systems. Reading the first 2 chapters kind of scared me into thinking hard about what the world is becoming. Out of all the books we have read this is the one that makes me a little uneasy. As I typed my blog I thought about being watched and privacy vanishing. The points he makes our things we really don't think of when we put up statuses or look up information online.
----> Digital Enclosure: " the creation of interactive realm wherein every action and transaction generates information about itself"
"meant to evoke the ;amid enclosure movement associated with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the process whereby over time communal land was subjected to private control"
Thoughts :
First of, reading this book is very interesting. Apart from loving the eye on the cover of the book I find points the author makes interesting. His theory on Internet surveillance had an impact on me.
A privacy concern that's almost scary to read. Reading a lot of the books we have read for class this so far has been the one that has provided me with the most concern. I have never really thought about the POWER and the INTERACTIVE era aspect of the Internet. He brings up many points on Internet control that as consumers we don't really focus on. I don't see it as people watching me but rather just a source of entertainment. This book served as an eye opener.
In the first few chapters he discusses geo-based technology and the use of the wireless network for all in San Francisco. Although, this is great because people are able to have access to the Internet everywhere he points out some of the negative aspects of this surveillance and power that rises with how accessible the Internet has become. People usually look unto google for information or to purchase items. Google gives us links to or ads to grasp the consumers attention based on what they already know the consumer has looked up or recently purchased. ( we never told them to advertise anything for us however they still do)
The book made me aware of the one thing that I am the most concerned about! Privacy! Does Google even have a right to know my location! Nothing today is actually really private. We have cell phones in which we now openly admit our location (I couldn't stop thinking about this while reading the first chapters: Face book now has a feature that allows you to check in to the area that you are located.) Andrejevic makes the point that interactivity simply means the loss of initial freedoms. We are tracked no matter what we do online. "This book argues that the developyment of the promise of interactivity in commercial and political contexts underwrites, participation in top-down forms of management and control rather than in democratic self governance." We gave up our rights to privacy once we accept this technology.
However, I found it interesting that as I perceived through the next chapter as he talks about the Internet culture and its great impact on us. Andrevejic points out something that triggered me. He talks about Google becoming a verb and a proper noun over time. We generate information about ourselves through sites like Google making it easy for people to stalk each other and be informed about the others life. The Internet has become a world filled with our most personal information. I liked the example that Andrejevic used about the women who stalked her lover online thanks to sites such as Google. He goes as far as to talk about parents tracking their kids through phones GPS systems. Reading the first 2 chapters kind of scared me into thinking hard about what the world is becoming. Out of all the books we have read this is the one that makes me a little uneasy. As I typed my blog I thought about being watched and privacy vanishing. The points he makes our things we really don't think of when we put up statuses or look up information online.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Blog Theory Part 1: Communicative Capitalism / Symbol Efficiency
Let's just say that I am better understanding the text after re reading it a few times and thanks to our class discussion. This is what I understood. Correct me if I got the idea all mixed up. However, I am hoping to understand to the best of my ability. This blog represents what I understood from the first part of the text. As we proceed to reading other chapter's my understanding has become better. I am better able to get a full grasp of the text as we go. It help's to have google open while reading the text. I was able to define terms/ words I didn't quite understand and put the texts into my own words. Once I broke down the texts I can say I had a better idea of the message. It took me a while. Im still trying to understand the first part. These are my thoughts.....
" E-books and articles as well as blog posts on theoretical topics are convenient ways to store and share ideas. But these benefits come at cost : We pay with attention. "
Deans Argument: "communicative capitalism is a formation that relies on this imbalance, on the repeated suspension of narratives, patterns, identities, norms, etc."
Blog Settings
( Reading this chapter helped me understand that through blogs we are able to put our idea's for the world to see. Blogging is a new convenient way to do so. However, although we have freedom of speech some consequences do form.)
The media is constantly changing. It is designed to be fun, fast and a way to grasp the attention of a full range of users. Media is seen, thought, recorded and saved. People are always bringing new ideas to the table with media. Hence "blogging" a type of way in which people can discuss their ideas. "Thought can be immediate, an element of its moment or more precisely. of the fantasy that attempts to delimit a moment out of the present's rush to the future and the absorption into the past"
In the media there is is an overwhelming amount of information for us. So much that one becomes overwhelmed by how much their is. Although their is a massive amount of information that as seen as equal amount (it can easily be changed or put into different concepts).Ideas are not really stable. There is so much information that is put out there that we no longer take the time to think and analyze information. We are distracted by the amount of information that is out there and the idea that the media is meant to be exciting and fun other than informative. Once again correct me if I get the idea mixed up?
Communicative Capitalism: "captures critique and resistance, formatting them as contributors to the circuits in which it thrives."
"fragments thought into ever smaller bits, bits that can be distributed and sampled, even ingested and enjoyed, but that in the glut of multiple, circulating contributions tend to resist recombination into longer, more demanding theories."
What I got from the idea of Communicative Capitalism is the idea that information is produced however the focus of the quality of the information is lost because people become focused on the production and for entertainment focuses. Communicative Capitalism provides a sense of Democracy ( in terms of allowing us to express ourselves and express freedom of speech) However, the speed and the other qualities "produce massive distortions"
Dean explains that "Communicative Capitalism"
assigns name to two things coming together democracy ( equality, freedom of speech) and capitalism ( decisions regarding distribution)
However, from this idea there is a problem with the symbol efficiency.
Symbol Efficiency: A fundamental feature in Communicative Capitalism. " decline of symbol efficiency points to an immobility or failure of transmission." It is difficult to tell when a blog is serious or when it is funny. People interpret ideas differently. The more information formed, symbols fade because of the mixed signals people receive. As new ideas form, symbols start to decline. An example that I thought about was brought up in class. It helped me understand this point more.
Britney Spears is a symbol of pop culture. A political Theorist has its own kind of symbol. A Political Theorist is a symbol of the academic. As new media forms and people are able to give feedback new ideas form taking away meaning from the original symbols. Symbols fade.
The page that helped me kind of wrap the chapter in my head was ( p.29) The first paragraph there states that " Blogging's settings then, include the decline of symbol efficiency, the recursive loops of universalized reflexivity, the extreme inequalities that reflective networks produce, and the operation of displaced mediators at point of critical transition."
Although, we are free to blog messages are misinterpreted many times simply because of the way blog settings work. We are able to give feedback and its a very great way to share your ideas and put ideas for the world to see. However, meaning is many times lost due to the absence of meaning. A blog can be written and have no meaning.
" E-books and articles as well as blog posts on theoretical topics are convenient ways to store and share ideas. But these benefits come at cost : We pay with attention. "
Deans Argument: "communicative capitalism is a formation that relies on this imbalance, on the repeated suspension of narratives, patterns, identities, norms, etc."
Blog Settings
( Reading this chapter helped me understand that through blogs we are able to put our idea's for the world to see. Blogging is a new convenient way to do so. However, although we have freedom of speech some consequences do form.)
The media is constantly changing. It is designed to be fun, fast and a way to grasp the attention of a full range of users. Media is seen, thought, recorded and saved. People are always bringing new ideas to the table with media. Hence "blogging" a type of way in which people can discuss their ideas. "Thought can be immediate, an element of its moment or more precisely. of the fantasy that attempts to delimit a moment out of the present's rush to the future and the absorption into the past"
In the media there is is an overwhelming amount of information for us. So much that one becomes overwhelmed by how much their is. Although their is a massive amount of information that as seen as equal amount (it can easily be changed or put into different concepts).Ideas are not really stable. There is so much information that is put out there that we no longer take the time to think and analyze information. We are distracted by the amount of information that is out there and the idea that the media is meant to be exciting and fun other than informative. Once again correct me if I get the idea mixed up?
Communicative Capitalism: "captures critique and resistance, formatting them as contributors to the circuits in which it thrives."
"fragments thought into ever smaller bits, bits that can be distributed and sampled, even ingested and enjoyed, but that in the glut of multiple, circulating contributions tend to resist recombination into longer, more demanding theories."
What I got from the idea of Communicative Capitalism is the idea that information is produced however the focus of the quality of the information is lost because people become focused on the production and for entertainment focuses. Communicative Capitalism provides a sense of Democracy ( in terms of allowing us to express ourselves and express freedom of speech) However, the speed and the other qualities "produce massive distortions"
Dean explains that "Communicative Capitalism"
assigns name to two things coming together democracy ( equality, freedom of speech) and capitalism ( decisions regarding distribution)
However, from this idea there is a problem with the symbol efficiency.
Symbol Efficiency: A fundamental feature in Communicative Capitalism. " decline of symbol efficiency points to an immobility or failure of transmission." It is difficult to tell when a blog is serious or when it is funny. People interpret ideas differently. The more information formed, symbols fade because of the mixed signals people receive. As new ideas form, symbols start to decline. An example that I thought about was brought up in class. It helped me understand this point more.
Britney Spears is a symbol of pop culture. A political Theorist has its own kind of symbol. A Political Theorist is a symbol of the academic. As new media forms and people are able to give feedback new ideas form taking away meaning from the original symbols. Symbols fade.
The page that helped me kind of wrap the chapter in my head was ( p.29) The first paragraph there states that " Blogging's settings then, include the decline of symbol efficiency, the recursive loops of universalized reflexivity, the extreme inequalities that reflective networks produce, and the operation of displaced mediators at point of critical transition."
Although, we are free to blog messages are misinterpreted many times simply because of the way blog settings work. We are able to give feedback and its a very great way to share your ideas and put ideas for the world to see. However, meaning is many times lost due to the absence of meaning. A blog can be written and have no meaning.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"Free Labour" Anderson and Terranova
When reading chapter 3, I was able to understand some points Terranova made. It was interesting for me to see her connection of the Internet to the Capitalist society we are a part of. I found these ideas of Capitalism very interesting considering the fact that in my other class with Jodi Dean we are talking about the idea of Capitalism as well. It was interesting to see the idea of Capitalism in our networking world. The chapter actually starts off with a quote from Marx ("the real not capital is labour")
Terranova: (Focus: Free labor)
I really liked Terranova's example when she talks about the American Online volunteers investigating whether AOL owed them wages after hours of hard work promoting AOL chat rooms. Yes, the Internet world was expanding! However, the digital media is a form of individual consumption. Leaving those who labor online them with no income. Terranova talks about those that work for the production of the Internet as "netslaves." The Internet requires upgrades and loads of work in which people are not paid for and given the compensation they deserve. Terranova analyzes this idea of "free labor" and tells us that "free labour is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into excess productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited." I think this was an excellent point made by Terranova because it really emphasized and focused on her idea of the Internet as a labor being taken for granted. The work you put on creating websites like Facebook, Myspace and etc is networking labor that gets no compensation. No one likes to do work for free. What defines work is labor. People are willing to be "slaves" almost. That's what I got from what she was saying.
Anderson: (Focus: Free Products)
Anderson's point stood out to me because of his argument about the era we are a part of. Anderson informs us that "we are entering an era when free will be seen as the norm, not an anomaly." He talks about the Internet as something that should be free. Its content is meant to be free because that's what the people want. He doesn't really analyze "free labour" like Terranova does but rather elaborates on why the future of the net should be free and will become more free. The Internets progress tends to steer towards what people want which is a free net. He is more concerned with the actual products "content" of the Internet other than the labor behind it. I think his argument is interesting. I really thought about Prof Dean's point in her comparison of Anderson and Terranova. I thought about the rates of unemployment in the U.S. If everything is free. There would be no money. No one to pay people for labor. This would just increase unemployment.
I think Anderson and Terranova make some interesting points that our worth thinking about in the arguments on "free labour." I'm interested to see in what direction Terranova takes us next.
Terranova: (Focus: Free labor)
I really liked Terranova's example when she talks about the American Online volunteers investigating whether AOL owed them wages after hours of hard work promoting AOL chat rooms. Yes, the Internet world was expanding! However, the digital media is a form of individual consumption. Leaving those who labor online them with no income. Terranova talks about those that work for the production of the Internet as "netslaves." The Internet requires upgrades and loads of work in which people are not paid for and given the compensation they deserve. Terranova analyzes this idea of "free labor" and tells us that "free labour is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into excess productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited." I think this was an excellent point made by Terranova because it really emphasized and focused on her idea of the Internet as a labor being taken for granted. The work you put on creating websites like Facebook, Myspace and etc is networking labor that gets no compensation. No one likes to do work for free. What defines work is labor. People are willing to be "slaves" almost. That's what I got from what she was saying.
Anderson: (Focus: Free Products)
Anderson's point stood out to me because of his argument about the era we are a part of. Anderson informs us that "we are entering an era when free will be seen as the norm, not an anomaly." He talks about the Internet as something that should be free. Its content is meant to be free because that's what the people want. He doesn't really analyze "free labour" like Terranova does but rather elaborates on why the future of the net should be free and will become more free. The Internets progress tends to steer towards what people want which is a free net. He is more concerned with the actual products "content" of the Internet other than the labor behind it. I think his argument is interesting. I really thought about Prof Dean's point in her comparison of Anderson and Terranova. I thought about the rates of unemployment in the U.S. If everything is free. There would be no money. No one to pay people for labor. This would just increase unemployment.
I think Anderson and Terranova make some interesting points that our worth thinking about in the arguments on "free labour." I'm interested to see in what direction Terranova takes us next.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Network Culture, Tiziana Terranova Ch 2.
"Information is not simply transmitted from point A to point B: it propagates and by propagation it affects and modifies its milieu."
Information is transmitted from one area to another and by this it affects its environment. Chapter 2 was definitely a better read than chapter 1. In chapter 2 I was able to better understand Terranova's point. Chapter 2 took parts of chapter 1 that were hard to understand and put it into perspective for me. What I got from this chapter is a better understanding of what "noise" is and its affect on network dynamics. Information goes through different channels which are interpreted differently to each individual person. Information importance depends on the channel that it becomes a part of. It is upto the individuals own experience with information to determine its message. Information goes through different channels meaning that one person can gain a different perspective of information. Another person can gain a different idea depending on what channel the information passed through before getting to each person.
The sentences in this chapter that really helped me understand what Tiziana was conveying were on page 65. Tiziana states that, "messages are broken down into packets and each packet is sent out into the network to find its destination by being relayed around through a network of autonomous and decentralized nodes. If any obstacles arise along the main lines, the various packets can be sent out in different directions to find their own best possible routes. "
Information is all over the web and is interpreted differently by different people. Each person's interpretation might influence the next. The message many times can get lost in these channels. If "obstacles" as Tiziana describes arise messages go in different locations. Individuals are the routes that these messages travel towards.. We each grasp information in different ways. Information can be altered depending on individual interpretation and individual experience. Information is always changing.
Information is transmitted from one area to another and by this it affects its environment. Chapter 2 was definitely a better read than chapter 1. In chapter 2 I was able to better understand Terranova's point. Chapter 2 took parts of chapter 1 that were hard to understand and put it into perspective for me. What I got from this chapter is a better understanding of what "noise" is and its affect on network dynamics. Information goes through different channels which are interpreted differently to each individual person. Information importance depends on the channel that it becomes a part of. It is upto the individuals own experience with information to determine its message. Information goes through different channels meaning that one person can gain a different perspective of information. Another person can gain a different idea depending on what channel the information passed through before getting to each person.
The sentences in this chapter that really helped me understand what Tiziana was conveying were on page 65. Tiziana states that, "messages are broken down into packets and each packet is sent out into the network to find its destination by being relayed around through a network of autonomous and decentralized nodes. If any obstacles arise along the main lines, the various packets can be sent out in different directions to find their own best possible routes. "
Information is all over the web and is interpreted differently by different people. Each person's interpretation might influence the next. The message many times can get lost in these channels. If "obstacles" as Tiziana describes arise messages go in different locations. Individuals are the routes that these messages travel towards.. We each grasp information in different ways. Information can be altered depending on individual interpretation and individual experience. Information is always changing.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Network Culture, Tiziana Terranova, Ch 1.
Information Focus: Content vs. Signal
When I first began to read Terranova's book I thought it would be a bit easier than Lanier's book. At first the book seemed like it would be easy and straight to the point. However, after the first few pages and its introduction I realized this was not really the case. I found myself lost in some of the language Terranova uses. However, the most important point I got from the first chapter of her book is the concept of informtation on the web. Information is every where on the web. One simply types a word on google and a variety of links to gain information pop up! It's the greatest thing the Internet has to offer.
However, Terranova helped me understand some key points about the abundance of information on the web. She touches on this idea of "global culture." A culture which allows us to be dependant of the Internet because of its massive information. However, in her first chapter she helps us understand how overwhelming Internet information can be. The actual "information" one was looking to gain is lost and it no longer becomes an issue of meaning but rather signal. Tiziana describes what information has become in our 21st Century culture. Something she states that helped me deeper understand the message she was conveying in her first chapter is that "we know at least two things about information: that is the content of a communication act; and that there is something less material about it, at least judging from the ease with which it goes from mouth to to ear and ear to mouth." What I understood from this is that as information is processed the actual content is lost behind it. Information most go through a clear channel in order to be understand. She talks about how information is not about the meaning behind it anymore but about NOISE! The actual noise is what makes the message. It can actually form the information other than the actual content.
Information goes through a set of different channels. However, noise can affect its overall message and what the source is trying to tell us. These channels in which information is transmitted many times become clogged not letting people actually grasp the material. We are overwhelmed with the actual concept of information. Information many times is affected by outside sources that actually affect what we gain from its meaning. She explains that "communication also includes the possibility of a corruption of the message in transit by noise." We become overwhelmed by uniqueness, commonality etc. We focus on other concepts of information that may impact its transmission. We are left with tons of channels with an abundance of information telling us different things.
When I first began to read Terranova's book I thought it would be a bit easier than Lanier's book. At first the book seemed like it would be easy and straight to the point. However, after the first few pages and its introduction I realized this was not really the case. I found myself lost in some of the language Terranova uses. However, the most important point I got from the first chapter of her book is the concept of informtation on the web. Information is every where on the web. One simply types a word on google and a variety of links to gain information pop up! It's the greatest thing the Internet has to offer.
However, Terranova helped me understand some key points about the abundance of information on the web. She touches on this idea of "global culture." A culture which allows us to be dependant of the Internet because of its massive information. However, in her first chapter she helps us understand how overwhelming Internet information can be. The actual "information" one was looking to gain is lost and it no longer becomes an issue of meaning but rather signal. Tiziana describes what information has become in our 21st Century culture. Something she states that helped me deeper understand the message she was conveying in her first chapter is that "we know at least two things about information: that is the content of a communication act; and that there is something less material about it, at least judging from the ease with which it goes from mouth to to ear and ear to mouth." What I understood from this is that as information is processed the actual content is lost behind it. Information most go through a clear channel in order to be understand. She talks about how information is not about the meaning behind it anymore but about NOISE! The actual noise is what makes the message. It can actually form the information other than the actual content.
Information goes through a set of different channels. However, noise can affect its overall message and what the source is trying to tell us. These channels in which information is transmitted many times become clogged not letting people actually grasp the material. We are overwhelmed with the actual concept of information. Information many times is affected by outside sources that actually affect what we gain from its meaning. She explains that "communication also includes the possibility of a corruption of the message in transit by noise." We become overwhelmed by uniqueness, commonality etc. We focus on other concepts of information that may impact its transmission. We are left with tons of channels with an abundance of information telling us different things.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Interruption!...Great another Ad!
As I was blogging and doing a few other things for other classes. I came across a multitude of ad's. Don't you hate those ad's that say "YOU ARE A WINNER?" Free IPOD! One gets happy and clicks it thinking it is actually true? Well many of us nowadays have become immune to this! We know not to click this! As for me well......I learned the hard way! My 30 second moment of happiness turned into 2 weeks on unhappiness when struck with a virus!
However, after reading points made by Lanier and our class discussion. The point that struck the most to me in Lanier's work was the use of ads. I thought deeper about the use of ads and how it influences us. Technology has actually allowed for corporations to become even more invested in our personal life. Even though one doesn't voluntarily give away information about the personal things we like, corporations buy information from the sites you visit in order to get a better idea of what you like. They will do anything to make a profit. Once they know of a particular interest you may have, they will bombard you with ad's that may show you certain interest they think you may have. If one shows to like a certain artist you will get emails about their upcoming concerts and etc. If you like a certain kind of brand. You will get hundreds of emails about sales even around your area! YouTube is a perfect example. One searches a song that one likes and on the side of YouTube there will be tons of suggestions for artists like the one you like or ad's that spark a particular interest corporations think you may like due to your searches. I found it very hard to go on websites without in a way coming across another ad!
I found this to be a very interesting point made by Lanier. One is bombarded by ads sometimes even making it harder to resist shopping online! Yes I am a victim! However, im still unsure if ads are a positive aspect of the Internet or a negative one. In a way ads help keep web pages alive and may actually give us some valuable useful information. Other times it can just be an annoying way to get people to spend their money! However, how would the Internet work without ads? Would it become harder for companies to make money? In what ways do ads influence you personally?
I found this to be a very interesting point made by Lanier. One is bombarded by ads sometimes even making it harder to resist shopping online! Yes I am a victim! However, im still unsure if ads are a positive aspect of the Internet or a negative one. In a way ads help keep web pages alive and may actually give us some valuable useful information. Other times it can just be an annoying way to get people to spend their money! However, how would the Internet work without ads? Would it become harder for companies to make money? In what ways do ads influence you personally?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Lanier Finale 4/5
We shouldn't let the computer think for us. We are the ones in control.
My first response when coming to the end of this "Manifesto" was thank goodness. Although, Lanier makes some good points and is very opinionated in his writing it was hard to understand him sometimes. He kept jumping from point to point in a almost very abrupt manner. It was clear that his audience wasn't necessarily college students but computer programmers like him. In the last 2 sections of his book Lanier takes the reader through a different angle. He directs us through what he believes is a "more positive focus" on the Internet. He examines "human culture" and its development, this complete interaction with the "cyber world" which is greater each day.
What makes us "human" is the ability to function independently and think for ourseleves. We are free to choose. We are conscious of the things around us which make us different from computers. Computer's are our creation. Many computer programmers believe that one day computer's will have the same qualities as humans. However, we should not forget that computer's are just a creation. They are not "human." We have a freedom of choice in terms of what to look up and what to analyze. Computer's have no choice. We tap its buttons to make this "device research" ideas for us and help us. Lanier mentions the idea that computer's are able to regognize patterns. Computers can now regognize facial expression. A quality much like that of a human. The problem that is rising from computers is its way of "thinking." We can not make the mistake to treat items like humans. At the very end he wraps up this idea of human attachment to technology. He talks about "Computalism" this idea of humans and computers as a whole.
However, computers and humans are completely different. Computer's follow commands while we have expression, feelings and emotions. Computer's aren't able to smell. Those senses are specifically unique to just humans, Computer functions can be a bit "human like" but never be exact to what humans are. How can we think that this gadget can be human? Lanier rejects this notion that computer applications are like humans and we should treat them like humans. Humans can identify who we are, computers will never actually be self aware. As humans we are losing our sense of reality due to technology.
Lanier is truly about individuality and creativity. I really liked the fact that he values these human qualities.However, their were many parts of the book I wasn't so fond of. I do believe that the Internet has brought forth a lot of positive notions to our society. Thanks to social networking such as Facebook people are becoming reconnected each day. The Internet besides its negative aspects have shaped the life of many people. The Internet has had a positive impact on some and a negative impact on some people. It all depends on how one decides to manage the Internet. I am very happy I got to view Lanier's perspective. However, I am happy that we are moving on from his book. I look forward to the other readings in the class and what I will learn about the networking world!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Power Laws, Web blogs, Inequality: "A Popularaity Contest"
DIVERSITY + FREEDOM= INEQUALITY
EXTREME INEQUALITY
Each minute of the day there is someone in the world blogging, about to blog, or thinking of blogging. Within minutes ideas are flourishing and the most popular ideas are making headlines. As a new member of the blog world myself due to the Digital Networks class I have learned so much about blogging. I now find myself looking at blog sites interested to see what people are blogging about! However, there was something very interesting that I noticed when I googled Blog sites. The first thing I noticed was the choice that listed the top blog sites. The websites name was choice number two called http://www.topblogsites.com/. This website serves as a directory for the top blogs in each category. From that very experience of blog searching, I was able to fully understand what the power law reading described. It described this idea that although blogs are open to all for free writing only the ones with the most popular reviews are really looked into and praised by readers. The success of a blog all depends on how popular it is. Not everyone’s blog is heard although it is made easy for everyone to put anything online. Usually the same kind of people will like a certain blog not leaving enough room for diversity. The more blogs are created the less likely it is for the ones at the bottom to become read. Those that were first aware of blogging influence others thus, making blogs a system in which preference is key.
The essential point made by the article is the idea that “Diversity plus Freedom of Choice creates Inequality, the greater the diversity is, the more extreme the inequality will come to be." This stood out to me as a very ironic idea. However, becomes an idea that is very well comprehensible and understood. The idea that now anyone can put something up and has the freedom to do so doesn't specifically mean that their blog will have an equal opportunity to be looked upon. The idea creates a concept of a bell curve format. Blogs by top performers are at its height while those with the least followers, although have great points are at the bottom. There is an unequal opportunity to be noticed due to a "preferential" element to blog creation.
A very important point the author makes is that”few blogs will be more popular than average and a few less, of course, but that will be statistical noise." It all depends on how likely it is to be read. This in a way connects in a way to favoritism. The author breaks down the preference level in a blog by what it has to offer and explains 3 different factors which include,
1.) Preference Quality: (Recommendation of others)
2.) Preference Marketing: (Value in reading Blogs people you know read)
3.) Solidarity Goods: (The most enjoyable to read)
Blogging in a sense is like a competition. Everyone wants to get their voice out and has the right to do so. However, only those with an already set kind of popularity set are more successful at blogging. The more the blogs the harder it becomes. I thought this article was very interesting and gave out a lot of good points. It really related to my own life and experience with blogs. When searching for blog sites I was more interested in the ones with the most comments and ratings then the rest. I am an example of a person who looks into blogs with the most views and comments in order to make a decision. Blogs are very influential depending on how many people like you or that you may know are reading them as well. Blogs are like a popularity contest the ones on top will be most likely to be more appealing.
EXTREME INEQUALITY
Each minute of the day there is someone in the world blogging, about to blog, or thinking of blogging. Within minutes ideas are flourishing and the most popular ideas are making headlines. As a new member of the blog world myself due to the Digital Networks class I have learned so much about blogging. I now find myself looking at blog sites interested to see what people are blogging about! However, there was something very interesting that I noticed when I googled Blog sites. The first thing I noticed was the choice that listed the top blog sites. The websites name was choice number two called http://www.topblogsites.com/. This website serves as a directory for the top blogs in each category. From that very experience of blog searching, I was able to fully understand what the power law reading described. It described this idea that although blogs are open to all for free writing only the ones with the most popular reviews are really looked into and praised by readers. The success of a blog all depends on how popular it is. Not everyone’s blog is heard although it is made easy for everyone to put anything online. Usually the same kind of people will like a certain blog not leaving enough room for diversity. The more blogs are created the less likely it is for the ones at the bottom to become read. Those that were first aware of blogging influence others thus, making blogs a system in which preference is key.
The essential point made by the article is the idea that “Diversity plus Freedom of Choice creates Inequality, the greater the diversity is, the more extreme the inequality will come to be." This stood out to me as a very ironic idea. However, becomes an idea that is very well comprehensible and understood. The idea that now anyone can put something up and has the freedom to do so doesn't specifically mean that their blog will have an equal opportunity to be looked upon. The idea creates a concept of a bell curve format. Blogs by top performers are at its height while those with the least followers, although have great points are at the bottom. There is an unequal opportunity to be noticed due to a "preferential" element to blog creation.
A very important point the author makes is that”few blogs will be more popular than average and a few less, of course, but that will be statistical noise." It all depends on how likely it is to be read. This in a way connects in a way to favoritism. The author breaks down the preference level in a blog by what it has to offer and explains 3 different factors which include,
1.) Preference Quality: (Recommendation of others)
2.) Preference Marketing: (Value in reading Blogs people you know read)
3.) Solidarity Goods: (The most enjoyable to read)
Blogging in a sense is like a competition. Everyone wants to get their voice out and has the right to do so. However, only those with an already set kind of popularity set are more successful at blogging. The more the blogs the harder it becomes. I thought this article was very interesting and gave out a lot of good points. It really related to my own life and experience with blogs. When searching for blog sites I was more interested in the ones with the most comments and ratings then the rest. I am an example of a person who looks into blogs with the most views and comments in order to make a decision. Blogs are very influential depending on how many people like you or that you may know are reading them as well. Blogs are like a popularity contest the ones on top will be most likely to be more appealing.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
You are not a Gadget Part 2/3
Lanier talks about this idea of a musical culture created by the Internet. This culture known as a "open culture." A culture in which new artists are using the Internet in hopes to promote themselves and become a "big shot." Artists are using the Internet promoting music and making sure their talent is not only shared locally but with the world. The Internet makes this goal easy. He believes that the Internet creates an unrealistic idea since their are only few that actually make it. The Internet makes people believe that they have a better shot at making it when they really don't. Their idea that they will actually become artists is socially created by the mindset the Internet has bestowed upon us. People believe the Internet is the best way to promote their music. Music is now just a click away. However, this idea further ties to the idea that he introduced in part 1. This idea of creativity and individualism becoming challenged by technology. Lanier not only targets the rise of new artists on the Internet but also how the Internet is used as a source to advertise. People advertise through the net. I really liked how Lanier articulated his argument. He makes valid points and can be very persuasive. However, I disagreed with his opinions on the use of ads. He describes how much the Internet has changed further. In his description he mentions that at the start of the Internet this was something unheard of. Now ads are everywhere online. However, I disagree because I believe ads help people become informed and help fund many of the websites people view. People promote themselves online. Ads online have made many people successful. I think that some of the negative aspects of this "open culture" he describes are actually positive ones because of the way they have shaped the life of many people for the better.
The point that I agreed with Lanier the most on is his argument on "file sharing." I also believe that file sharing has really affected musicians. "File sharing" is a concept created by the Internet. It was because of the Internet artists music has been shared essentially hurting the artist and record company in someway. Artists need fans in order to become popular. The Internet makes this easier. "File Sharing" is something Lanier seems to have a problem with. However, I think "file sharing" has actually helped some artist spread there music if they aren't able to sign it to a record company.
People are using YouTube in order to create a fan base. Those that don't have a fan base and yet are still very talented are left behind. I agree with this point in a sense. There are many people who have launched great careers thanks to sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. However, I do believe that many artists are made famous more because of their popularity on the net other then maybe their actual talents. Leaving some very talented unrecognized. Lanier makes good points. He lets the reader wonder about the type of generation rising. The more I read Lanier's work i think about how dependant we have become towards the Internet and makes me think deeper about the large impact it has created and continues to create.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
YOU are NOT a Gadget: Part 1
I am Robot VS I am Human
A very important point that I liked in the book was Lanier's explanation about technologies grand affect on people and how it alters people's life. I think it was an idea that many of us can relate to. Many of us cant imagine a world without the Internet. The Internet is a source of communication and a social network in which people connect and interact with each other. Millions of people are connected to the Internet each day. Any alternation a web page can have can have a different impact on people and the way they perceive the information they are receiving. The Internet has a profound influence in our lives. Many times these "gadgets" humans created ourselves can become almost in a sense a guide in the way we live. Lanier states that when " developers of digital networks design a program that requires you to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they ask you to accept in some corner of your brain that you might also be conceived as a program." This particular sentence stood out to me because of how radical the idea was. As, I write this blog I am using the Internet. Does that mean that I am being conceived as a program? Internet programmers try to spice things up on the net to keep humans intrigued and in the world the Internet creates.
Lanier goes on to describe the use of popular personal pages people create such as facebook and etc. These websites can tell you about a persons life and within these pages a persons creativity is lost. These personal pages form a new form of "culture." A " web culture" that is taken over really taking away the person's concept of actual reality. These sites were used for commercial use in order to wrap young people into this world. The Internet was constantly finding ways to gain more fans and now of all ages. The Internet has something interesting to offer all humans. However, it is now becoming a part of everyday life. The Internet as described by Lanier starts looking almost like a form of religion! Lanier makes some very powerful statements of the Internet in the first part of his book. He sees it as something that started as a simple tool to inform people and enhance human knowledge that is now overpowering human knowledge.
Lanier really opens up his book with the negative aspects of the web. However, he assures us that not everything in the Internet is a "cruel maze in which people get lost in." He does a great job in explaining to us how the Internet movement became a phenomenon and how it brought revolutionary changes to the world. It brought so many changes to our world that in some way it has almost "human qualities." I really like Lanier starts of the book. He really points out some key important points of Internet usage and makes his book very interesting. Each page intrigued me more. He opened up my eyes to ideas I never really think about as a daily Internet user. The Internet keeps growing and becoming dominate in society. I am interested to see what other points Lanier makes in other parts of the book. Technology is something that we are so dependant on. I personally don't know what I would do without the Internet. However, the Internet has become a source that is dictating the way our life should be. People's creativity,Independence and personalityes are being lost within this simple looking "gadget."
According to the dictionary, "humans" are characterized by their ability to have a highly developed brain capable of reason, language and problem solving. These qualities make us "humans." We are self aware and are able to understand each other. In the book, We Are Not a Gadget, Jaron Lanier, makes us think deeper about our role as individuals. He asks the reader "what is a person? and goes on to explain that if he "knew the answer to that, he might be able to program an artificial person in a computer. but he can't being that a person is is not a pat formula, but a quest, a mystery, a leap of faith." Our roles as humans and our ability to comprehensive and enhance our own ideas is limited to a source that does the work for us. The "Internet" and general use of the computer is able to reason and is a problem solver. The Internet seems to solve problems humans have a longer time solving. It is scary to think that humans and the use of technology are becoming so similar. This "gadget" Jaron Lanier focuses on in his book really helped me understand the deeper impact the Internet has on our daily life. His arguments were valid in making me understand this " lock in" concept of the Internet. A concept which helped me understand the idea in which the Internet has become a source that sucks humans in because of the way it facilitates our life.
A very important point that I liked in the book was Lanier's explanation about technologies grand affect on people and how it alters people's life. I think it was an idea that many of us can relate to. Many of us cant imagine a world without the Internet. The Internet is a source of communication and a social network in which people connect and interact with each other. Millions of people are connected to the Internet each day. Any alternation a web page can have can have a different impact on people and the way they perceive the information they are receiving. The Internet has a profound influence in our lives. Many times these "gadgets" humans created ourselves can become almost in a sense a guide in the way we live. Lanier states that when " developers of digital networks design a program that requires you to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they ask you to accept in some corner of your brain that you might also be conceived as a program." This particular sentence stood out to me because of how radical the idea was. As, I write this blog I am using the Internet. Does that mean that I am being conceived as a program? Internet programmers try to spice things up on the net to keep humans intrigued and in the world the Internet creates.
Lanier goes on to describe the use of popular personal pages people create such as facebook and etc. These websites can tell you about a persons life and within these pages a persons creativity is lost. These personal pages form a new form of "culture." A " web culture" that is taken over really taking away the person's concept of actual reality. These sites were used for commercial use in order to wrap young people into this world. The Internet was constantly finding ways to gain more fans and now of all ages. The Internet has something interesting to offer all humans. However, it is now becoming a part of everyday life. The Internet as described by Lanier starts looking almost like a form of religion! Lanier makes some very powerful statements of the Internet in the first part of his book. He sees it as something that started as a simple tool to inform people and enhance human knowledge that is now overpowering human knowledge.
Lanier really opens up his book with the negative aspects of the web. However, he assures us that not everything in the Internet is a "cruel maze in which people get lost in." He does a great job in explaining to us how the Internet movement became a phenomenon and how it brought revolutionary changes to the world. It brought so many changes to our world that in some way it has almost "human qualities." I really like Lanier starts of the book. He really points out some key important points of Internet usage and makes his book very interesting. Each page intrigued me more. He opened up my eyes to ideas I never really think about as a daily Internet user. The Internet keeps growing and becoming dominate in society. I am interested to see what other points Lanier makes in other parts of the book. Technology is something that we are so dependant on. I personally don't know what I would do without the Internet. However, the Internet has become a source that is dictating the way our life should be. People's creativity,Independence and personalityes are being lost within this simple looking "gadget."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Internet Timelines: Commentary
Each group did a great job in organizing the information that they learned from the internet timeline. Each group brought forth a different format and way of presenting this internet timeline. Each presentation gave me great ideas for possible future presentations of my own. It was hard to remain attentive during some of the presentations because of the formats some groups used. Many presentations were a bit wordy. However, each presentation had great information. I thought it would have been a better idea to create a presentation that was less wordy and was straight to the point. I think this would have helped the classroom retain the information and not spend so much time reading the board but hearing what was said from actual group members about the internet timeline.
The First Group's presentation was a PowerPoint presentation. I really liked the use of PowerPoint. I think that PowerPoint is a fast and easy way to present something and be effective. I really liked that they used dates to describe the different phases of the internet in their presentation. This group had lots of information and presented their internet timeline in a way that was easy for the class to follow. I think it would have been more interesting if maybe some videos were added and slides that looked different to catch the audience's attention. Adding some pictures in the PowerPoint may have also made the presentation more appealing. However, I believe they still did a great job presenting their points. I liked how each member spoke and how they divided the times in the timeline among themselves. I also liked how they were open to questions the class had for them.
The Second Group's presentation was very interesting for me to be a part of. I had never worked with imovie on the Mac. It was something new to me. I think that my group was very creative and tried to make things more interesting. I really liked who I worked with. They welcomed me into their group and really taught me how to work with imovie. I plan to use this idea of making a film again in future presentations not only in this class but in many other classes. It was overall a great learning experience. I really enjoyed working with my group. I wish I would have enrolled in the class earlier so that I would have had more time to work with my group. I feel that we needed work on the timing of the clips and the voiceover but overall I felt things ran smoothly.
The Third Group's presentation was very good. I liked the use of the dippity site they used. It was something that I had never seen before. I look forward to looking into this website for future presentations. I liked that they can show different slides and also show us their work in a timeline effect as well. However, I think they might have had too many slides on one particular area of the internet timeline. Overall, I think it was well done and very unique. They opened up a new way one can do a presentation.
The Fourth Group's presentation was similar to the first presentation because of their use of PowerPoint. However, I really enjoyed that they all seemed to have grasped knowledge of the timeline. They all participated and used the PowerPoint to emphasize their ideas. I think that maybe slides that were different would have made the presentation even better. Maybe different kinds of slides with different colors or font would have made it more interesting. Overall it was a great presentation and one of the most informative.
I think everyone did a great job! I really liked how everyone mentioned popular websites like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. I think that these sites are examples of how advanced the internet has become! I look forward to working on the next presentation. I am also glad that I worked on this presentation because of all the information I learned about the internet I never knew before.
The First Group's presentation was a PowerPoint presentation. I really liked the use of PowerPoint. I think that PowerPoint is a fast and easy way to present something and be effective. I really liked that they used dates to describe the different phases of the internet in their presentation. This group had lots of information and presented their internet timeline in a way that was easy for the class to follow. I think it would have been more interesting if maybe some videos were added and slides that looked different to catch the audience's attention. Adding some pictures in the PowerPoint may have also made the presentation more appealing. However, I believe they still did a great job presenting their points. I liked how each member spoke and how they divided the times in the timeline among themselves. I also liked how they were open to questions the class had for them.
The Second Group's presentation was very interesting for me to be a part of. I had never worked with imovie on the Mac. It was something new to me. I think that my group was very creative and tried to make things more interesting. I really liked who I worked with. They welcomed me into their group and really taught me how to work with imovie. I plan to use this idea of making a film again in future presentations not only in this class but in many other classes. It was overall a great learning experience. I really enjoyed working with my group. I wish I would have enrolled in the class earlier so that I would have had more time to work with my group. I feel that we needed work on the timing of the clips and the voiceover but overall I felt things ran smoothly.
The Third Group's presentation was very good. I liked the use of the dippity site they used. It was something that I had never seen before. I look forward to looking into this website for future presentations. I liked that they can show different slides and also show us their work in a timeline effect as well. However, I think they might have had too many slides on one particular area of the internet timeline. Overall, I think it was well done and very unique. They opened up a new way one can do a presentation.
The Fourth Group's presentation was similar to the first presentation because of their use of PowerPoint. However, I really enjoyed that they all seemed to have grasped knowledge of the timeline. They all participated and used the PowerPoint to emphasize their ideas. I think that maybe slides that were different would have made the presentation even better. Maybe different kinds of slides with different colors or font would have made it more interesting. Overall it was a great presentation and one of the most informative.
I think everyone did a great job! I really liked how everyone mentioned popular websites like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. I think that these sites are examples of how advanced the internet has become! I look forward to working on the next presentation. I am also glad that I worked on this presentation because of all the information I learned about the internet I never knew before.
"In an Internet World": Reflection on the readings
I will start my blog by sharing a personal experience that helped me connect the readings with the way the internet directly affects me as an individual. This weekend my iphone became terribly damaged. Within the first few minutes I became extremely nervous and frightened about not having any communication with the world. Numbers became lost and I was unable to access my email. Without my iphone, which I am accustomed to check every few minutes, I felt lost and incomplete. Although the iphone is just a phone and does not have any human qualities I felt terribly distressed. I am sure many of us feel this way about our phones and our laptops. I knew there was an immediate remedy for my problem. THE INTERNET! I immediately searched through a massive amount of websites to try and replace my damaged phone. I searched through sites such as Ebay, AT&T, Amazon and etc.
With this experience, taking place as I was reading the articles, the statement that stood out to me stated that, "if you do not care about networks, the networks would care about you." I also noted the line in which Logic states that the internet is less a creation dictated by economics than it is a miracle and gift." These two lines in the, "After the Dotcom Crash" stood out to me. I realized the connection between my massive searches for a new phone on the internet to the points the article was addressing. The internet itself is full of advertisements that persuade you to buy products online. Even before going on the EBay website in search of a new phone I saw ad's that promoted the website. A major concern is this concept to make money and become a wealthy business. Although the internet has great resources that can benefit us, companies see it as a source to gain money and make a profit. Hence, the idea of making the internet for profit caused a huge crash due to people's constant need to become consumers other then absorb the important information the internet can provide.
Although, we learn about a negative aspect of the internet, the different articles give us a myriad of ideas that help us understand what the internet can develop to be. We witness how far the internet has come along. In the article, "History of the Internet and Flexible Future", Leonard Klein rock, talks about how the internet affects our behavior and the way we live our life. I completely agree with Klein rock’s idea due to my own experience. My phone being a huge part of my life and losing it shows a change in behavior due to the fact that because I no longer had my phone I felt different and out of the loop. However, there was a very important point that Kleinrock made sure the reader knew. He stated that, “we shape the future of the internet." The more we become a part of this "Internet Cyber World" the more accessible the internet will become. By describing the history of wireless connection and the five phases to which he believes the internet will evolve really helped me imagine a more internet based future. Each day the internet draws more people into this kind of "Internet realm."
In the article "The Past and Future History of the Internet" written by Barry Leiner, we witness a similarity with Kleinrock's point on the future of the internet. Thanks to the internet people are able to stay connected and have easier forms of communication. Kleinrock and Leiner focus on the positive aspects of the development of the internet and its changes since its invention. Leiner informs us that, "the Internet represents one of the most successful examples of sustained investment and commitment to research and development in information
infrastructure." I agree with Leiner because the internet has been really successful and perhaps one of the best inventions of all times. Today, young children are even using the internet as a resource.
infrastructure." I agree with Leiner because the internet has been really successful and perhaps one of the best inventions of all times. Today, young children are even using the internet as a resource.
I must admit that it is a bit overwhelming how fast the internet has developed and how essential it has become in our society. However, reading these articles and connecting it to my own experience with a Smartphone I was able to further connect with the readings. Instant messenger and Facebook on my phone have allowed me to connect to family members even outside of the United States. Instead of having to wait to get to a laptop to respond to a message in a matter of minutes and sometimes even seconds I could have received the message and replied. Losing my phone is not a huge tragedy. However, my experience allowed me to further understand the immense dependency of the internet which the articles emphasize. I was able to gain knowledge about the history of this "internet world" many of us our now a part of and the many ideas of how the internet can continue to develop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)