If there is anyone out there who is stuck as well, contact me, so we can uh, be stuck together!

Some areas that intrigue me:

The Internet–> self-promotion disguised as networking. Commodification of friendship.
-

 match.com. How does getting to know someone soley through the internet change dating? Is it dangerous? This would be sort of a hard thing to study, because all of are too young to be using these sites- we aren’t that desperate yet! But there are even sleazier sites out there, for golddiggers to meet sugardaddies, and for married people who want affairs. It’s pretty dark. Do I even want to go there? This ties in with the whole fake-identity thing too..

-Something about origins of LOLCATS?? could we make a new spinoff catch on?

(This article response will be my most critical thus far…)

These two McLuham excerpts were so fast-paced and ADD that they reminded me of the internet and television itself. My mind spun as the author made radical transitions from one paragraph to the next, referencing such varied sources as William Blake, Alexander Pope, Gutenberg, T.S. Eliot, Shakespeare, Poe, De Toqueville, Pasteur, Pope Pius XII…essentially everything but the kitchen sink. I found that so many outside references decreased the clarity of McLuham’s message. His own voice became lost as he repeatedly deferred to outside sources. It created, (in my humble opinion) a disjointed, patchwork effect.

Being in college, it isn’t as if I’ve never read a name-dropping, lofty-sounding essay. It isn’t as if I’ve never written them. But I guess that the other articles we read in

The New Media Reader

set a precedent for this class, for this subject- I was expecting McLuhan’s ideas to be made more accessible. The other authors so far have made a deliberate effort to put their theories in layman’s terms. They know it is important for Joe Schmoe to grasp these concepts. Well, Joe Schmoe can’t follow these constnt literary/historical references! He is automatically excluded.

marriedtothesea.com

This article by Kay and Goldberg was envisioning, a “Dynabook”- essentially, the very aparatus I am currently typing on- a lap top computer. At first, I was honestly not that interested in the article, because it seemed like a reiteration of the ones we have already read: Such and such scientists think we should invent computers to interact with us and store information. Everyone should have access. It will change the world! “Here we go again,” I thought.

I mean, maybe it is my own ignorance of the subtleties of technology, but in large part that was what I gleaned from Kay and Goldberg. The only thing that surprised me was their focus on children as consumers. Previously, it seems that people such Engelbart wanted to use computers for more adult tasks, organizing numbers and files. But this article talked about kids drawing pictures, which was kind of cool. I feel like I remember having a simplified computer-esque toy when I was younger. There was this board you drew on with a plastic pencil, and your drawing showed up on the TV. I thought that was the coolest. How could I have forgotten? The fact that the kids featured in this article were so interested in programming and designing was very refreshing. Like we talked about last class, re the flaaws of education, one really does FORGET that learning is meant to be fun, that it is not ‘natural’ for humans to be bored. It is a promising idea that we could use computers to make children interested in shapes, music, math, etc.
~

Are we using computers as ‘metamedia’? How many people need to be using them before we can say this?

Apparently I am very easily influenced, because after reading “Computer Lib/ Dream Machines” by Theodor Nelson, I like him even more than Engelbart! This is in large part due to Nelson’s more casual, accessible writing style, “Like a letter to a nephew,” he says, or “a photography magazine- breezy, forceful, and as vivid as possible.” I felt like Nelson had a good grasp on the way “laymen” think of computers and their accessories: cold, inhuman, unwelcoming. He recognizes (even back in ‘74) that a chasp between computer ‘experts’ and laymen was widening, and that this was tragic. Everyone should know how to incorporate computers into their everyday lives, he said: “No one can get a simple sout-to-nuts overview of what computers are really about, without technical or mathematical mumbo-jumbo, complicated examples, or talking down. This book is an attempt.”

“No More Teacher’s Dirty Looks” was my favorite Nelson article. I loved the way he criticized the educational system, articulating flaws that every student has felt, but never said. “To want students to be ‘normal’ is criminal, when we are all so far below our potential,” he says. (No Child Left Behind, anyone?)

::The Woodstock of Computing::

I thought this was a fascinating video. I liked that we could actually see and hear Engelbart, instead of simply reading his words on the page. So much more of his personality is conveyed through this video- his passion for computer innovations, his humble attitude.

This recorded presentation was originally given to a live audience, and at certain points we (the modern viewer) can hear the audience react to Engelbart’s ideas. A lot of the technology he mentioned eventually did come into wide use- as one girl commented last time in class, it seems like Engelbart was the “Nostradamus of technology.” His “Augmented human intellect research institute” came up with the concept of everyone using computers at work to organize and manipulate tasks. Obviously, during the 30 years since, this goal has been realized. His old-school computer demos about shopping lists and staff members visionary at the time.

Not only were his demos on personal computers prophetic, his ideas for the internet also astonished me. Engelbart foresaw, NLS, an online system, as, “A vehicle for helping humans to operate within the domain of complex information structures,” aka, deviating from linear organization. What happened next really wowed me: using a computer with primative-looking hardware, Engelbart basically put his colleague Bill on webcam! That kind of thing is a novelty, even today- I have never used one, and this is 2008. At first, poor Bill seemed a little nervous over being broadcasted, so Engelbart humorously broke the ice by chiding: “…you’re silent? Don’t worry Bill, there’s nobody here but a large audience!”

Basically, I wish I could call up Engelbart like Dr. Campbell and leave a bubbly “fanboy” message too: it’s just so cool that he is talking about such complicated technology, while maintaining a modest, friendly tone to his listeners. It is clear that he truly has humanity’s best interests at heart- he isn’t merely trying to impress us, or create technology for the sake of being famous.

Hive Mind/ Collective IQ

Fractals-

a particular type of infinity. The structure of the whole is also found in the structure of each part.
3 distinct layers of thought composution: Specification–> Organization–> Content
Engelbart’s insight is that each layer is itself a fractal, containing the other layers. Understanding this is first step to meta-cognition. Thoughts aren’t independent units.

Campbell:

A difference in degree, when it becomes great enough, brings about a difference in kind. A car is not a faster bike. A phone isn’t the same as being able to shout really loudly.

Student:

Yeah but my problem with Engelbrt is that it’s like he expects everyone to be as smart as he is–everybody doesn’t have the intellect to be that innovative.”

Gardner:

Actually, everyone can use language. This symbolic system will enable anyone, whatever their IQ, to be creative.
~

Prior to Engelbart, computers were centralized- used in timeshares. Like Amazon.com, they only appeared to respond to you, but in reality were being shared among many users. His proposition of PCs was therefore seen as wastful. His dream wasn’t fulfilled until the ’70s.

The virtual world that we enter when using a PC is different from a book. It is both a window and a mirror. Ironically, the U.S. defense department became very interested in personal computers ans LSD in the ’60s. “Anything to expand your mind,” says Campbell,
“but I’m sure those guys never inhaled.” This hippie-connection is apparently decribed in What the Dormouse Said. (Never read it)

Engelbert’s vision opposed to “natural language”- heirarchically nested categories of thought. Our brains think associatively, like a web. Unless we can get at how thoughts are organized, and design computer infrastructure accordingly, computers cannot truly augment our minds, only confuse us more. A concrete example of a symbiosis of computers and humans is Photosynth . It “scrapes” photos by tourists from sites such as Flickr, and from these independent shots, uses complex math to create 3D maps of popular destinations, such as Piazza San Peitro, Rome. Now anyone in the world is able to view all of these photos in onc place, and interactively explore these places, zooming in, and panning around. Sweet.

“Make this weird to you”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the absence of our illustrious professor, the group (slightly thinned) carried on, and spend the period brainstorming various topics for our final project. One girl took the initiative to write on the board, and recorded our comments. The list:

-use of podcasting in education
-youtube and comedy
-second life- way to make $ with it?
-sykpe (holding meetings online)
-art in multimedia and advertizing, ex/flickr
-performance of writing: blogs- interchanging of medium and audience. facebook- life as a performance
-video performance- streaming in both directions (actors see live audience)
-Alice- programming for dummies
-e-comerce
-improv everywhere

So far in New Media Studies, a recurring class theme has been ways in which humans shape culture and technology, but how now our very creations have come to inluence us instead. We are no longer the gods of our own machines. Dr. Campbell has suggested that with technology becoming more and more sophisticated, we as independent-thinking humans need to increase our game as it were- we need to strive to stay ahead of culture- to not let it shape us, not just reproduce the same images and themes that are constantly thrust upon us. In order to solidify this concept of humans shaping culture versus culture shaping humans, I will now give (what I cnsider to be) an interesting example from Dr. Harding’s ENG 372 class- Contemporary Drama and Performance Studies.

The other day Dr. Harding was discussing a theme similar to NMS- ways Life can actually immitate art, instead of Art immitating life. He brought up a disturbing story about U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Apparently bored soldiers have been watching a little too much of the hit tv show 24. I have never seen this show, but apparently many episodes feature Jack Bauer using many creative torture methods to “patriotically” extract information from his prisoners. Upon seeing such violence glorified on tv, impressionable young soldiers have been trying out these torture techniques in real life- a horrifying example of life immitating art, of humans kowtowing to Culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic

Welcome to UMW Blogs.org. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging! If you need some help getting started please refer to the support documentation here.

We recommend you change your password and activate the spam filter plugin Spam Karma as soon as possible.