Technology and Modern Life

The fears of technology that people had at the turn of the century seem to parallel the fears we have now of everyware consuming our lives. Its interesting to think though, about what they feared then and how it seems like such an innocent technology now.

Telephones – “some objected that it encouraged too much familiarity and incivility and that it undermined neighborhood solidarity”

Our society now is all about connections, and with the internet I am unsure if we will ever have “too much familiarity” with anything, especially each other. But during the 1920s when this claim was made, their society was completely different than ours is now, I am sure the idea that you could talk to someone whenever you wanted, several hundred miles away would be very scary thing, next to your farm house being abducted by a flying saucer of course.

“College administrators in the 1920s argued that automobiles distracted students from their studies and led many to drop out”

Perhaps more people are dropping out help their families, or some other noble cause that requires them to flee from school. If cars are suppose to help people go places, and people are leaving college (granted dropping out is not good) then I would think cars are serving their purpose of transporting.

While reading Technology and Modern Life it seems like new technologies and society are playing a never-ending game of cat and house. If its not telephone that are causing moral breakdown, it’s the radio, if its not the radio than it has to be videogames, or cell phones, or computers, the internet, basically every major technology has “been then and caused that”. But they are all just technologies, and we, the users of technologies should be the ones taking the blame.

“The telephone cannot think or talk for you, but it carries your thought where you will. It’s yours to use...” This quote can serve any technology, and as I type on a computer, it is I thinking, not the keyboard, mouse, or monitor.

Everyware where you really need it

Reading through Everyware always makes me think of something new, never too repetative. While reading about how everyware may be used in helping people be less overloaded by information, it came to me how easy it would really make certain parts of my life. Everyday life is all and well with everyware, but what about where we really need it? Like in places of emergency, where speed and accuracy is extremely important when concerning information. I work at a hospital and when doctors need to get test results for bodily fluids stat, it is rather hard to do, especially during peak time when everyone is trying to get there patients test results. this is not even considering all the time it takes to sludge through mislabeled specimens, and other other such problems. If RFID tags were implanted in the labels as they printed out, I can see much of the laboratory work being done in half the time, leaving techs with more time to spot and fix mistakes.

Technology and ‘Ancient’ Modern Life!

I found the reading in America Calling to be quite interesting. I think it’s a perfect example of the evolution of man through its different stages. Evolution is not just restricted to Anthropological observation but more so by the change in man’s society and human environment. The initial pages talks about the ever-so famous Debate about whether Technology and Modern Inventions have decreased the qualitative aspect of living our life by making humans rely more on convenience which makes them less pro-active. In 2007, this does seem like a needless topic of conversation as technology has penetrated all of our lives in, as some would say, irreparable ways. I also notice similar sentiment in some of the earlier posts. But try and think back. Way back. When having a telephone was considered a novelty. When the decision every month was not whether to renew the Time Warner Cable Internet and Digital Phone Services, but rather if there could exist a way to communicate faster than sending messages through telegraph and the odd voice call. In man’s history, if there has been any one avenue where he has seen the most change, it is undoubtedly Technology. And the aspect of Technology that has impacted man the most is Communication.

I was particularly interested in AT&T’s 1916 Public Announcement where they say that, the subscriber is the dominant factor. “His ever growing requirements inspire invention”. Worth noticing that every successful invention has had one thing in common. It all starts with one simple idea that would impact the lives of many (lets not think of the modern semi-conductor or Biological cloning technologies!). This simple an idea then leads to a chain reaction if successful. And the more people it applies to or targets, the more successful the invention. AT&T got it right with the Telephone. And boy, did they get something right. They did not perceive (then) that it would lead to many new technologies (dialing up to a local server and having a secured connection!). But they kept the golden principle in mind; ‘Subscriber is king’. It was only time before they hit the right chord, and the ‘bells’ starting ringing!

Everyware...Helping or Hurting Society?

In Thesis 28, Greenfield discusses the computer’s importance in our society. It holds our gateway into the digital realm and enables us to do pretty much whatever we can accomplish with a “magical box”. This reminds me of my first thoughts of the “magical box” we first opened up at my home. Complete with music burning, DVD and photo editing software, that box quickly became the central tool in my life. I call it a tool because essentially, that’s what it is. It allowed me to create, explore and connect to the world. I quickly saw the progression of our society as dependant on such elaborate and complex devices. That point quickly reminds me of a movie I recently saw. The movie Babel is an intertwined mix of storylines that all deal with communication and locations. Whilst, a deaf, mute girl in Japan uses her video-cell phone to “talk” idly chit-chats to a friend in her luxurious Tokyo-skyline loft, a little boy and his brother in Morocco run across a desert to deliver an important message to their father in a stone hut. Two societies, in the same world at the same time using different means of communication and technology to do the same thing. In the same movie, the main character, in need of an ambulance for his wounded wife, is stranded in a small village in the same Moroccan desert with only one telephone to call for help. I have no doubt that seeing this movie made aware of not only customs and traditions of different countries in this world not being on the same page, but also the differences in technology make for vastly different ways of life. I’m not saying that countries with computers are the only ones to prosper, but the welcoming of technology has enabled many societies to come together and grow into this “dawning age of ubiquitous computing”.

Instant Gratification and Laudromats

I’m really interested in the question of whether technology changes our lives, or whether we change technology to suit our lives. I thought the most interesting part was about how we’ve become less communal and spend more time on our own, whatever the technology being used. I never really thought about the fact that almost every home has a washer/dryer now. It would make more sense to use them communally, but then I can also understand why people wouldn’t want to; it even makes me feel a little gross to know that someone else’s dirty clothing was in the same place mine is now.
I absolutely can’t picture sharing a tv with other houses though. I can see why it became a very solitary activity. Especially when everyone wants to watch something different. It may not have been a problem in the early days of television, but now there are zillions of channels, not just a few major networks.
I think one of the other problems with communal, energy-saving use relates to Steven Kern’s argument. “The technologies passed on their instancy and speed to the users”. The technologies sped up our lives, and we don’t like to do the waiting that is required to use a community dryer. We want everything to be instant, which relates to the trend toward faster technology now. Really it applies in many aspects of daily life. In this day and age, everything has to have immediate gratification. I want it here and now, even if waiting would be more rewarding in the long run. I say, not everything is supposed to be so easy. There’s nothing wrong with waiting, even if it is inconvenient. What’s a little inconvenience once in awhile?

Help Where Help Is Needed

Everytime I would read Everyware with all its talk of RFID tags I would only begin to imagine the numerous security issues and the invasion of privacy we would face. But I guess I forgot that they aren’t ONLY capable of telling the government exactly where you are on earth every second of the day, or to tell everyone your entire life just from a urinal (okay I’m exagerating), but that they can help with such things as the elderly and even the economy. If we really do go into a future that is similar the future from Minority Report, then there will be almost uncountable sensors in the world. Sensors would be literally EVERYWHERE which would raise a huge market for sensor production.

But aside from the economy, using these devices to help out the elderly is amazing. When I read that the Japanese came out with that automatically turns crossing signals green for elderly citizens, holding oncoming traffic until they have crossed safely, I just thought that was a great idea. Or to just help them out with everyday tasks like reminding them to take their medication or that their teapot is boiling. It can make them feel a lot safer at home and for those who don’t have others at home with them to help out, it can keep them in the comfort of their own home and how of a retirement home. My family is constantly worring about my grandfather and have even discussed putting him into a retirement home but he loves his house too much to leave which leaves us to weigh out sides; safty vs happiness. But I know we would feel a whole lot better if we had a whole bunch of sensors to help him through his daily routine or that could contact us if something has happened to him.

Personally

I thought it to be quite funny how many people thought that new technologies would ruin society and make people bumps on pickles. Of course, my persepective is from the year 2007 when I realize many things that the sociologists back in the day had no idea about. Even today new technology is scary. I dont want the government using RFID tags to track me or even know where I am. I believe these and many other technologies will become more prevalent in our society as it grows and becomes adaptable to these new things. It seems like many people in the article that were saying how cars would stop people from going to church and that sort of things, were very dumb. I mean if anything it makes it easier to get to church. The college kids wouldnt be studying because they would be driving around in cars is also very laughable. If college kids dont want to study and dont have a desire to learn more, then they really dont have to. I feel as if many people that were making these claims were pestimistic about technology in general and just really lame. Technology is were our world is going whether the southern baptists like it or not.

Do we have a choice?

While it is undeniably a prospering market with enormous future potential , do we have a choice in ubiquitous systemic or is it inevitably an
economic or technological progression?

Yes I think we do have a choice but not a choice over whether to allow its integration into society, rather a choice on what it will do for our society, what is can strengthen. I personally see its integration into our daily life already and since it is not one specific thing that can be pin pointed it can be considered a natural progression of cultural discover. We have the choice to use Ubiquitous computing to take on a most promising role in our western and worldly cultures.

As proposed in everyware, caring for the soon to be largely elder population as well as the mentally and physically disabled. This is where I think we have a choice in using ubiquitous computing to our social advantage. If we use ubiquitous computing to care for our elders then we will in turn benefit the society as a whole as well as provide an means for continued economic growth. It would be great to have enough people to care for the aging population but this numbers burden can truly be solved by ubiquitous computing. The monitoring of the elder population and overall assistance will provide a safer and more vibrant lifestyle for everyone as they can gracefully age and continue an active connected life. Having dealt with online accessibility in accessibility web design class I have come to somewhat understand the confusion of navigating the web and the benefits of providing universal access to technology as a whole. How great would it be if ubiquitous computing could allow anyone to equally share the online experience through elimination of accessibility barriers through ubiquitous computing. With promises of a more accessible life, ubiquitous computing has a vastly positive social and economic potential if society as a whole chooses to address it.

multiple aspects

In Thesis 25, Greenfield claims that computers are dying and will be replaced with assimilated technology. Although I do believe the computer will be replaced, it is still a long way to go, past our lifetime. We could argue that the radio would be completely obsolete in current society, however with every car and household still carries a radio. With the advent of satellite radio, perhaps radio is getting a facelift for rejuvenation.

In Marshall McLuhan entry, he carefully describes how the radio affected history especially politically. An interesting paragraph was on the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Nixon was overwhelmingly superior on the radio while Kennedy seemed to be an inferior candidate. Nixon was eventually banished as a “phony” with his latter appearances on television. FDR was also a great radio speaker because he was so natural and composed. He was equivalent to some of the best radio personalities today and won him great favor throughout his presidency. Hitler and Germany is another example of how radio changed the world politically. With radio, Hitler was able to use mass propaganda and remain in the psyche of the German people.

The beauty of radio is that it can be more of a personal relationship. It allows listeners to listen in privacy and have more of a direct relationship with the radio station personalities.

Implementing Everyware: A False Hope?

Reading through Everyware, it is obvious of the sheer potential and capabilities that can be reached using such an omnipresent suite of applications. The Thesis over using EveryWare as a means to prevent and control crime as well as improve overall security is a tricky situation to deal with. The amount of control and supervision capable of being implemented through the use of Everyware applications could effectively end or severely hinder the continuation of crime in the area. Even without the wide range of applications possible, current technology is able to, under the right circumstances, track and process a person's actions. Using the ticket system of the New York City metro line, NYPD has already had moderate success in using applied environmentally aware technology to track down suspects. The problem arises when this type of potential software system is introduced on a wide scale basis. Whatever unlucky person or company proposes that such a drastic system be implemented on a city and/or nationwide scale will almost immediately be met with claims of solely using the system potential as a pawn of the power hungry elite or for solely using the network to deprive people of their basic freedoms granted from the Bill of Rights. Not to say that such a fear is completely unfounded, but regardless of how good an omnipresent network of applications improves daily life and standards of living, detractors will always cite the potential abuse as a means to never implement such a system. The present day use of video cameras and RFD tags already incites fears in the less outward thinking citizenry that "Big Brother" is constantly policing them. Opposition such as the NRA is powerful enough to influence congressional acts and ruin peoples reputations based solely on their whims. If an equally powerful organization were to result from the bias against an Everyware type of system, the potential of what could be accomplished wil more than likely never be fully realized.

Unplugged

Who would have that there would be a time where we needed to be forced to pull ourselves away from technology? There are special services that are beginning to pop up around in hotels that help with this “problem.” One example is called the “Blackberry Detox.” This service allows you to check-in your blackberry (or any other electronic devices) so that you can be free from the stress of having to worry anymore and actually enjoy your vacation.

Being in an Information Technology department, you do feel as though you are leashed, but it tends to became second nature to be constantly alert all the time. You get so used to it, you don’t even notice the inconvenience of it anymore until it is gone and you do get to relax.

Besides blackberries, PDAs and cell phones (which I have mentioned in a previous blog), the laptop usage has highly increased allowing for work to be portable where-ever you are. I am an example of this case. My employer is in Houston and I work remotely from Austin. I log into work whenever there is WiFi available, and when I am at home, I am always available to work as long as my internet is up and running.

So when do we get a break? After reading ‘America Calling,” you start to think that we really can’t pull away from this technological world that we become accustomed to without being almost "forced" to do so.

Technology's Influence

In reading this Technology and Modern life I like how it's approaching the questions I think we all wonder about. Essentially, what has technology done for us, or to us? Is it controlling us?
I particularly like the idea of the billiard ball metaphor. Cars reduced the need for horses, which reduced the need for feed, which increased available land for edible food planting, which decreased the price of food. I like how it brings to mind the multiple and varying effects of technology. We can't simply say the telephone was influential because it allowed us to communicate of vast distances. What else did it do? What did talking from country to country instantly change about the world? It's almost like the idea of everything and everyone being connected. Like a ripple effect in the world.

When Fischer brings up the argument about specific groups develop technology for specific purposes I don't think it is entirely wrong, but I also don't think it should be an argument against the rippling effect. There is no doubt a group develops a technology for a specific purpose. As consumers we all have a void, or hole, in ourselves in which we seek to fill with material objects deemed valuable by our social settings. First it might be that ipod, then it might be the ps3, then it might be the HDtv. The point is, inventors create technology in an effort to fill that void in us. They try to manipulate us to want it, to feel like we need it and it's the thing that will satisfy us. So in this way, technology is created for a purpose. But I agree with Fischer in that we aren't changed by technology, we use it to "more vigorously pursue our characteristic ways of life." Technology is created for a purpose, we buy it for that purpose, but eventually we mold it, it doesn't mold us, and then something new has to be created. This keeps the circle going. We have a need, it's temporarily filled, then it's empty again. All the while we can't forget about the billiard effect of technology. All in all, I think the effects of technology is an interesting topic.

Thesis 30: 1984 welcome to 2007

We have to face some facts: The world will continue to get smaller and things will continue to happen faster and faster. For the most part, I think this is a good thing. For example: I love the simplicity of my debit card--just swipe and boom you're done--that's awesome. I love getting paid by direct deposit and paying my bills online, again awesome. I love sending dirty jokes and stupid videos I found on youtube to my friends, inane but still awesome. Essentially it boils down to this: I like things simple. Debit cards, direct deposit, email and youtube, all these things make my life easier for me. They also make it easier to track me and what I do. Now I'm aware of this and really don't give it a second thought, its just the way things are. The fact that we live in a world where what we do is easily recorded is a by product of all the things we take for granted. The issue at hand is where will we limit this surveillance? Will we limit it? I think we will. Sure things might get a little nosey for a while but eventually limits will develop. The government might be more likely to listen to my cell phone calls now days than it was pre-9/11 but I really don't fear this. As a society we might need to raise an eyebrow and question the rational, even moral implications of increased government surveillance but as an individual, I really don't think it affects me negatively. In the end, if my life gets a little more simple and I can slack off a little more and still have some semblance of productivity, well good for me and thanks ubicomp. The flip side of this is that my life made easy means my life is recorded. To Big Brother I say bite me and mind your own business...but thanks for letting me know my credit card was stolen stolen.

Thesis 29 talks about the application of Everyware in order to help the aging population. This is an interesting application for technology. It could eventually turn into an extension of the house's alarm system. It would just make sure that all the residents were alright, as opposed to just making sure the house was locked. The increase in technology is not only helping to extend the length of life for people, but it will also help to increase the quality of life for our elderly. As stated in the thesis, the common reminders that the system could deliver to aid in everyday tasks would undoubtedly help to preserve the self image of the elderly, even as they venture down the slippery slope to losing their memory.

One concern that I have with this proposed use of Everyware is that many of our eldest citizens are the same that are most resistant to change. The thought of my grandma trusting a bunch of computers to take care of her as she ages is beyond my understanding. There is no way she would allow "those fancy machines" to do anything for her. She does not even have a PC, and the thought of her allowing her entire house to be computerized is far fetched. I do not know if a vast majority of the elderly have feelings similar to those of my grandma's, but I assume that many are as apprehensive to change.

Everyware to take care of the elderly is most likely to succeed with a generation that has grown up with computers.

Technology and Society

Technology has really brought its own culture into our way of life. I think our technology has definitely made life easier and more efficient but in return we have become reliant on these technologies and there systems. I even think it has made us a bit lazy. How many times have you been in bed or on the couch watching tv and realized the remote is sitting some where off in the distance and you were to lazy to get it. Come on now that is like double lazy. In a comment in another one of my blogs someone mentioned how he used his cell phone to call his room mate who lives ten feet away. We are all guilty of these little actions and I wonder just how much we have changed because of these technologies. But technology is far too beneficial to be weary of it and although technologies like cell phones, email, and chat rooms make life impersonal, we are always connected which in its own way brings us together. Imagine if we didn’t have all that we have and we had to live life without such advances. I think we would be more involved within our community and not confined to our computers, game consoles, and cell phones which take up a good part of our time.

LATE: NPR and the Radio

I listened to npr yesterday during the morning. I feel it is just like CNN or some other major world news program on the television. Obviously the big difference is that radios are more portable and can get to a larger audience only if people would actually tune in. They make the news on npr somewhat catchy with their political game shows but it certainly isn’t for everyone. Reading the Communications in History I found it amusing how ham radio users would send military soldiers on missions that didn’t exist. I remember in middle school I actually got to become a licensed ham radio operator. A few kids got in trouble for horsing around just like in the old days. But then the whole Titanic thing happened and although it wasn’t the radio, the whole idea of congesting air waves in times of emergencies reminds me it isn’t that amusing. It is hard to realize how the radio got families together back then. I mean they would eat dinner and tune in to their favorite network programs and just enjoy a good laugh. The only parallel to that in the present is the television but it seems there is one in every room of the home so it doesn’t even bring us together in terms of our physical presence.

Better Late Than Never.

I figured I should go ahead and post this one even though I forgot about it yesterday.

Although we didn't get to the reading in class, the discussion sparked my interest more than the readings did. When Barndollar said, "It's all really about allusion." It really made me to start to think about how close we could be to future technology. When I think about the future of television I think holographic or virtual, and video games where you are in the game. With this new level of clarity presented in LCD and Plasma, it's undoubtedly a much crisper and sharper picture. But there are some people who can hardly see the difference. Like the xbox 360 and the playstation 3. Playstation 3 is supposed to have a much higher level of high definition and especially with it's blue ray feature. But how much farther can we push picture quality and notice the difference? In 20 years plasma televisions probably won't be the spectacle they are today. But why? Will someone simply create a new level of picture quality. We are already, I think, at the edge of human mental capabilities. These breakthroughs in technology are allowing for a difference, but the allusion is going beyond our own human limitations. Sooner or later inventors are going to have to stop thinking about how much clearer the picture can be, and create a difference we will undoubtedly notice. I'm not sure how much clearer plasma can be.

The same goes for radio. Now we have High Definition radio which is just another trick of allusion. I really liked how Prof. Barndollar broke down the difference between Analog and High Def. Like the question "How long is the English Coast?" It really is infinite. Just like how much clearer can the picture get, just make the measuring stick smaller (the binary code bits). But we are already at the point where the difference is minute in our ability to perceive it. It just really makes you wonder what the next breakthrough will be. I'm not in a rush to spend 6 grand on a plasma tv just so I can see a limited perceivable difference. But when that plasma becomes virtual...now we're talking.

Radio Realization

While reading the communication history book on radio I realized what a revolutionary tool the radio acctually was to its time. I never had thought about how these people had to acctually craft their own radios then tinker for hours upon days to get a signal. Then they would sit by and listen to a random mix of things across the wavelengths. It must have been very enthralling to be one of the first of their town to have a radio then be able to interpret happenings coming out of a speaker. There were no stations that were a certain genre of music at the beggning so they just sat and listened. I relate this very much to the internet for our generation. They thought it was super uber amazing that they were acctually hearing all this info over the speaker, much like we browse web pages uber amazed at the information we have at our finger tips. The difference is that we can look upon anything we want. They had to just sit tight and listen to whatever was on. I feel like if I was in the generation of the first radios that I would be one to tinker with this magnificent machine and figure new ways to do things much as the "amatuers" did. It was so awesome to me how they were finding new ways to recieve stronger signals with different crystals. I found the readings this time highly interesting!

Technology's Social Ranking

Technologies integration into having a social presence raises extreme interest in the future of all social happenings. In the example of the present JAPELAS system, Tokushima University use ubiquitous computing to teach Japanese through a social analysis integrated into the computers. The system analyzes the social ranking or "distance" between the two speaking subjects to determine the appropriate expression in japanese. While this is an incredible integration of technology and social expression it causes definite questioning of how computers will have an altering affect on social happenings.
For example, as discussed will real-time information about a person we are talking to affect our perceptions and create a world were faults are defined upfront and noone can hold private their personal information. This whole googling in real-time seems to be a scary aspect of the new system bordering on the fears proposed in the film Gattaca. The film portrays a "not so distant future" where a ubiquitous computing society is culturally influenced and consumed by the classifying of social happenings providing a science for discrimination against the not-so-perfect. How will we define our culture with the integration of computing for social happening. Will genetics be the new standard of deciding who is appropriate or will asthetics and culture remain as sexual preferences. The fearful implications of ubiquitous technology in a social aspect need to be studied, considered, and defined to prevent future destruction of our society.

wwww - wireless world wide web

When I read the Wireless World short, I found it hard to locate the main idea of the piece. As far as I could tell, it was just a basic summary of this network did that and that network did this. But I looked over the work again and took quick note of all these dates. Most coincide with the late 19^th and early 20^th century. I’m quite sure that the manifestation of technology has only grown exponentially if measured on a numerical scale. This time period, only relatively shortly after the discovery of electricity and wired communications like the telegraph, was going wireless. This invokes a sense of a need for wireless technology. Mobility was the key. Take all the ships for example. The Titanic’s broadcasts were picked up for how long away? I’d have taken miles and miles of cable just to link any two ships together. So how about all the others? The ocean is a good place to implement wireless communications…in the early 20^th century. We see our world has been brought together and almost downsized with the advent of wireless mobility. It cuts cables and cords but still allows us to be connected. But apparently in 1889, Lord Salisbury commented that the telegraph could “combine together…the opinions of the whole intelligent world” Obviously, Lord Salisbury did not foresee facebooking in the middle of class as a need for wireless…

California and Stem Cell Research

While listening to NPR early in the morning, there was a analysis of the upcoming California resolution to award State and private grants to promote Stem cell research. Voters approved a $3 billion dollar resolution to fund additional research into the controversial scientific field more than 2 years ago. In the next few months, the beginning of those funds will begin to be distributed to various organizations and science facilities. While the bond measure was passed by the voters, state funds are as of yet unavailable to the measure as a number of anti-abortion and citizens' rights groups have appealed to the courts. The money being distributed currently is from private organizations and philanthropists.
While not solely a political move, the intended funds are not an indication that the state, governor or citizentry has complete approval for stem-cell research. A large portion of the allocated funds are being set aside to aid struggling labs and university research centers continue their work into investigating the intracacies of biological research as well as possibly find some alternative solution to the issue of harvesting the necessary materials from human stem cells. There was also the issue of decreasing interest in biological studies at the university. Given such a relatively new and unknown science combined with the swirl of political controversy surrounding it, enrollment in fields associated with stem cell and other microscopic research has been steadily dropping. Not surprisingly, any academic field with such an unpredictable future will be hard to recruit applicants for. THe state is hoping that by injecting funds into university labs and sciences, they would able to persuade future students to continue working in that field.

No More Excuses!

“Wireless World” brings up the discussion of how we, as a society, have become more alert and at the same time burdened with the fear of being unavailable. Before, when things were simple, messages and news were received as often as they could be sent or received. The expectation was very low.

In the case of the Titanic, it made news of how quickly news could travel a brought realization how tragic situations could be changed. While the ship was sinking, there was a case that the call for help was not received just because that near by ship was not available or did not think that maybe something might go wrong that night and stayed “on the line” to make sure. But if that near by ship did hear the call for help, he would have been able to cut down the number of casualties aboard the Titanic.

So if you think about that situation, you realize the guilt that you were right near by, but because you didn’t hear the call, you were in some way “responsible” for some of those deaths. You could have helped prevent something from happening. Who can handle that kind of pressure? No one, but now fear is a common feeling that occurs all the time now.

Is there a reason for us to not know when something happens anymore? Accessibility has become so much more convenient these days. The expectation has drastically changed from being able to handle messages infrequently to being constantly available for everything. Who would have thought that wireless Hot Spots or wireless broadband cards would be a common form of communication. No more excuses!

NPR in the morning

I listened to KUT/NPR, The Morning Edition, on my commute in to work this morning. I now know that its cheaper, a lot cheaper, to live in Argentina compared to America. Around 15,000 Americans now reside in the South American country, most live in or around Buenos Aires or other large metropolitian areas. One American living in Buenos Aires, cited the price of real estate as his primary reason for immigrating; the costs of real estate is about five times less. This makes Argentina a very attractive locale for many artists, and other creative folk, due to the friendlier cost of living. You see, they can slack off and still keep food on their plate and not starve to death. I could take my lousy monthly wage down there and live pretty comfortably, for a time at least. So that's the plan: Graduate, work for few years, then off to Argentina for early retirement. There is, of course, a drawback. Many of Argentina's working middle class see the increase in American immigration as an ominous sign of things to come. Many Argentinians see the rise of prices in their country as going hand in hand with the rise of immigration; still the appeal of the low cost of living continues to draw immigrants from North America.

A second topic covered on the Morning Edition was the renewal of talks between Israel and Hammas in a effort to resuscitate the road map for peace. Apparently the only thing accomplished in this round of talks was the affirmation by all parties (US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority) of the need for more meetings and international involvement.

The remarkable thing about all of this is the fact that all of this information was relatively timely and current. My drive to work was only fifteen minutes so once I clocked in at my desk, I found KUT on the web and listened to their streaming web cast. I still have the web cast playing right now, I just mute it when customers are near. I have to be careful not to fall asleep though, some of the material really makes you yawn.

Wireless Possibilities

I love the capabilities of wireless technology, mostly because they are infinite. If a certain device is still constrained by wires today, then it is only a matter of time until it is freed and allowed to function wirelessly. Once the telegraph was created, naturally given enough time someone was going to wonder if they could perform this task with out being bounded by wires. With us today we know that if something is wired then it will only take time until it becomes wireless, but back then, “wireless” was almost impossible to even contimplate. While I was reading Wireless World, I was a little shocked when Stephen Kern began to speak of the Titanic’s disaster as this glorious achievement. I understand that it was a huge publicity step for the usefulness of wireless communication but the way he describes it makes it sound as if he thinks the sinking of the Titanic was a valuable sacrafice.

After the wireless telegraph became popular the technology improved once more and the telephone came in use. “Jules Verne envisioned ‘telephonic journalism’ in a sciece fiction story of 1888. Five years later it became a reality…” this was a little amusing to me because even today our technology is getting closer and closer to the science fiction books that were written not too long ago and were considered a little “out there” in their time. It seemed that when the telephone came out, they were using it the same way we use a radio. They were broadcasting news, concerts, opera, stock markets and other information that they found useful. This was obviously going to lead to the future invention of the radio. It’s very interesting to see how one technological invetion seemlessly leads into another with a very useful productive outcome.

always a weakness to be found...

In reading the short selection by Stephen Kern, I was appalled about the weakness in wireless telegraphy. While the Titanic was sinking, crewmen were making frantic distress calls in search for emergency aide. A ship nearby could have saved everyone onboard, however the crewmen on the Californian decided to call it a day ten minutes before the catastrophe. The weakness entails that the weakness in communication at the time was that it required active participation at all times. People had to be monitoring signals in order to become of any use in situations like this. Today we would have had emergency sirens/lights or other signs that would infer an emergency message was received without the need of active crewmen. Upon hearing the siren, crewmen would be instructed to view the distress calls and take immediate action.

In Susan J. Douglas’s selection about the early radio, I was amused by the “amateurs” who often did more harm than the intended goal of helping society. Often the amateurs would use the wireless technology to transmit false and deceitful information in order to arouse personal humor. This situation reminds me of hackers to make it their life duty to crack and hack computers just for personal laughs and glory. It was delightful to notice how licensing of the airwaves allowed amateur radios to become significant in major storms and accidents. The radio today is just as popular and strong as it ever was and will continue to be a significant instrument for communication and personal enjoyment.

Selected Shorts: The Other Woman

Well, I didn't get much time to sit down and listen to 90.5 but i did turn it on as I was getting ready to do some errands. I happened to tune in on a story session and was greatly amused to hear the telling of 'The Other Woman" by Sherwood Anderson. Not only was interesting to listen to a soothing yet dramatic voice (an actor named keir-something) while trying to run around and concentrate on things like finding my keys, but it also was a good pick of a short story too.

After hearing this story, and before starting this blog, i decided to try to find it and read it for myself. There's something about listening to a story being told that is completely different then having read it yourself. You get a different tone and visualization, and it seems you comprehend both more about certain details and less about others (overall plot line vs. details like setting). I believe it is because when hearing someone speak we are already so used to picking out the important things we just let the rest fall into place, and later on we'll remember the 'heroic tale' they told you, yet sometimes forget who it was, or when it was told.

I don't usually listen to books being read, but i have heard it before. Everytime i hear a story being read though, i can't help but think about Orson Welles radio adaption of The War of the Worlds and the panic that was caused by it. I can imagine how realistic it must have seemed, and how influential it must have been to the development of what we hear on the radio today.

NPR

If I hadn't been driving, the voice telling that story would have put me to sleep. He was so dramatic, like a story about a guy throwing his daughter's fish into a pond was such exciting news. But dramatic or not, that was a really monotone voice. I really enjoyed the jokes though. There were some really funny parts thrown in, that I would have missed had I not been listening closely. He said the jokes with the same tone of voice as everything else. It actually made the jokes funnier, I think. I wonder whether the jokes would have been the same in the early days, whether they would have been so tongue in cheek. I can definitely see why this form of radio would have been popular back then. Stories told in installments would be their equivalent of television, except with the pictures in their heads. I personally didn't think the story I listened to was very exciting, certainly not exciting enough to listen to in pieces for weeks, but maybe they were back then, or maybe this would have been exciting to them. I do wonder if there are multiple people that read for the station, and if so, whether they all speak in that monotone voice. I was really impressed that something I thought was going to be boring based on the reader's voice was actually kind of interesting and definitely funny.

me, my countrly, the world, the universe

In reading how the telegraph and the Internet effects the worldviews of time vs. space, it is also interesting to see this put into an economic view point, as we see in “Time, Space, and the Telegraph”. Contemplating how receiving information instantaneously can causes mass hysteric reactions compared to the slow moving information receiving of older times, it brings up the example of looking at day to day stock market commodity graph versus a bimonthly one. The bimonthly graph would smooth out the day-to-day drops and rises and show an overview of how they have been doing, yet in not seeing the day-to-day, they miss out on seeing how the market really works and the little signs that might show a dramatic shift in the future. I mean think about if we step back in looking at the history of our world. If you step back far enough you could see that humans are just a recent little blip on the earth’s timeline. I think that knowing day-to-day information gives us the ability to step back and see the history of the information we have received and be able to predict more accurately where it might lead us to. Yet it also makes us forget that mistakes have to be made to more forward and to succeed, constant debating on how far is too far can only get us…so far. Some mistakes have to be learned from to get a successful final product instead of foreseeing the mistake and avoiding it.

Thesis 16 - I've already said it

Privacy is major thing in my life. My business is mine and mine alone. Not that I’m constantly doing bad things that I don’t want people to know about, but if people aren’t involved in my day to day actions, then why should they be aware of such actions. Thesis 16 mulls over scenarios that may not be present today but definitely possible in the near future if not already being implemented as we speak (or read). Stores tracking movements, drug testing toilets (a topic I brought up personally in discussion last week) and sensory floors embedded in our workplaces are just the technologies that will soon invade our privacy. “Methods of data collection…implicate us whether we know it or not,” states Greenfield (67). “Whether we know it or not”. Not only is that scary but it’s downright ludicrous if you ask me. However, the methods of detection will be avoided the same way hackers (or crackers) were put down. Firms will be established much like anti-virus and firewall companies opened up. Perhaps Norton and McAfee will have added security tools for your person in addition to your personal computer. Shoes with sensor blockers will stop the floor sensors and urine filters will allow everyone to get jobs at Wal-Mart. And the security and privacy industry will go nowhere but to the top.

Seamless Technoculture

I found Everyware's discussion of fears over ubiquitous computing security and the implementation within our culture and intriguing subject to be addressed in our emergent Technoculture. I do not fear the future that ubiquitous computing holds for our society. The argument over privacy of information and personal inquiry will be addressed accordingly by social pressures. Once privacy issues over ubiquitous computing are checked for invasive qualities I feel our daily lives will greatly benefit this emergent technology. But then the question of compatibility and implementation become the main obstacle for widespread cultural benefit.

The ability to become a "subject" rather than a user will reconfigure our technoculture of the past. While I do somewhat question how the security of privacy in this system will be checked/addressed, I find situating the service and implementation of the system throughout our culture and culture's we encounter on a daily basis more of a problematic future. How do we address the older generational cultures into using the system. Will their be greater confusion than in a world were their is visual connectedness that can be linked to a certain occurrence. Will availability of such technologies allow for less work and seamless efficiency in society or will it be more work for implementation and universal compatibility.

How will we deal with the adjustment of society into understanding, using, and avoiding ubiquitous computing life will determine the connectedness of social generations and overall greater social compatibility.

Ramblings and Ubicomp

Ok, it sounds to me like Ubicomp has some pretty promising possibilities in store for us. I like the idea of waking up in the morning and by that simple act, having my shower hot and ready to go. I also love the idea of checking my email in the mirror as I brush my teeth. Better still, if my breakfast and coffee could be hot and ready to enjoy, sweet. I wonder if ubicomp could let my dog out in the morning? etc. etc. But it sounds like there are at least a few unsettling possibilities. The main issue I don't like deals with the idea of privacy. I say idea because I know there is no real privacy, you just have to be careful with what you put out there; it boils down to common sense. But with ubicomp, common sense might not be enough. I sound paranoid, but I'm just trying to make a point: in a shrinking world, privacy tends to disappear. Now some examples: I definitely don't like the idea of getting spammed on the walk from my car to my office. I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of some wired up, smart toilet snitching on me to my boss, my doctor, or the cops. To sum it up, the ubicomp fictionalized in the movie Minority Report, yeah that bugs me. If ubicomp turns out to be anything like that I'm moving to Alaska. Which brings me to my next tangent. Let's say we attain some level of ubicomp, ok everythings good, life is simple, we're interfacing like there's no tomorrow...oh crap everything just broke, what now? I remember those rolling blackouts in California a few years back, what the hell happens to ubicomp in the face of something like that? Mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together? Ok I jest but its serious, stuff breaks and ubicomp is no different. We have to remember ubicomp is just a tool, a tool we apply to our enviroment. Sometimes tools break.

How much is too much?

How much technology is too much? This is a question that is soon to become hotly debated, providing the ubiquitous computer systems defined in Everyware comes to fruition. What really sparked my interest in this topic is not Thesis 16, instead it is a commercial that is on right now for the "Helio". The tag line of the Helio is, "Don't call it a phone, don't call us a phone company." The phone has integrated Internet, and other features that are pretty standard on smart phones. Then there is one feature that stands out. It is basically a GPS so that your friends can see your location. The ad of which I speak has two people under water, scuba-diving. They found each other using the GPS from the Helio. They only thing that I can think of is how tough it would be to tell even the smallest of lies. Say you didn't want to take someone with you to a party, so instead you told them you were staying home. You would be instantly busted. The only thing you could do is just leave your phone wherever you said you were going to be. That is a trivial example using a white lie. Now imagine if a girls obsessive ex-boyfriend had control of that technology. He could harass her on the way from class, show up where she was uninvited, ect. Of course you could turn the feature off, but turning off the feature would seem questionable to everyone that is always used to knowing where you are.

Overall the more technology advances, the less privacy we have on a day to day basis. Technology is going to advance, and will people be forced to accept it? The way it is defined in Thesis 16 makes me think that we will.

Would we even notice the revolution?

After reading of Everyware and its all-encompassing reach through daily life, the question is raised of whether the average person is even capable of truly "noticing" Everyware, much less appreciating its work. After decades of being the user, a strictly defined administrator figure to every computing need, people may not be able to accept the passive endeavor that Everyware is capable of. Even in this day, after efforts from media and organizations like Austin Free-net, most people regardless of education level or status are able to develop a decent grasp of computing. However, the less technologically inclined are only able to accomplish such through a basic point and click interface. The concept of Everyware is such that, even those with high knowledge of computing and realize its potential, would not entirely maintain an active awareness of what is transpiring. Most times, we would prefer for a system to run unbeknownst to us in the background, but for something this is capable of invading privacy and influencing free thought; a general type of indicator may be preferred.
Until there is a way around the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, Everyware as a whole may not be able to fully reach it's potential. A person's right to privacy is the underlying legal factor limiting an omnipresent system from fully functioning. For every moment when the concept of Everyware would be beneficial, detractors would be quick to point out how easily it can be abused.

Uses and Users

Computer usage varies as much as the types of computers that are available. When computers were first developed, the intention, as the book stated, was for developers. Normal everyday “users” were not a target audience for this type of equipment. But as time passed and technology developed, the need for computers changed in cases such as efficient work flow.

With the market being open to a large variety of computer users, there is also a demand for those who can support them. Computers such as Web TVs were designed to help those who merely needed a computer for email of web surfing. The interface was simple and easy to use and the product itself was somewhat affordable. But when you think of it, why not spend just a little more money and get a real computer? I think the fear of the “power” of a computer still intimidates some people and if they can separate the idea by saying, “Well, I just have this device that is connected to my TV. It’s not really a computer.” A simple justification like that can easily ease the fearful mind.

I have worked at a large chain retail store as a computer technician. I have seen purchases ranging from the Web TVs to the most high end computer available in the store. I have also spoken to customers who have never used a computer or finally upgrading one that they’ve had for many years. Support calls, which have graced our computers via email for humor, about the user who thought the CD-ROM drive was a cup holder. Those stories are true! Try walking a person over the phone who has never used a computer before to use a mouse. It’s not easy!! We do it everyday and can’t fathom how they cannot understand it.

Now, I work for a company supporting a different type of “user” – the business user. The whole idea of this is a little different since you think, “Okay, these people are getting paid to use the computer to do their jobs. This should be easy.” You would think they would be proficient at it. Not quite. A large number of these “users” only do what they know and what they have been taught. Exploration is out of the question. Some of them get into so much of a routine, that when a tiny change is made, they literally freak out. It is absolutely mind-boggling. The problem-solving part of them doesn’t kick in.

I think that there will always be that separation from the real computer users and the “users.” People have to have the drive to learn what makes the computers work to understand them or just be open to the idea of a computer so that they are not afraid anymore. But if that happens, some of us are out of a job!

The Bottom Line

In Theses 16, I like how Greenfield talks about the implicated problems of "Everyware". Instead of just listing endless amounts of scenarios he helps clarify by aligning the problems into three categories: Inadvertently, unknowingly, and unwillingly. I like how this really exposes what something like everyware will do. It's not that I was unaware of my personal objections to "everyware", it's just hard to state them. When discussing this in class, it's hard to not just give examples and say how we wouldn't like it. No why, just the fact it wasn't something we wanted.

The three categories, for me, help me illustrate what problems I would have. Whatever the technological advance may be, I can think, will this honor the will, knowledge, and intent of every person? It lays boundaries away from assumption. Now when someone thinks about creating a weighing system in a building they can think of whether it violates one of the three guidelines. Will everyone know is there and what it does? Will anyone mind participating? Will everyone know exactly what it does? Keeping this in mind, of course with the ever increasing security, everyware may not be so bad. Given that the technologies can not violate these three, why not? If I know it's there, and what it can do, and have the choice in using it, why not? The fear of "everyware" is from unintentional use, depersonalizing technology. While a urine analysis isn't exactly personal, if it doesn't force itself upon you, it's not exactly wrong.

Breaking the Time and Space Gap

When I first started to read “Time, Space, and the Telegraph” I thought it was going to be an extremely summerized version of The Victorian Internet, but I quickly discovered that it wasn’t. I knew how the law of supply and demnad worked, but I had always imagined it applying to a huge geographical area. But before the telegraph it wasn’t too easy to communicate amongst cities or towns about the price of each other’s good and I think that it was clever the way traders used the method called arbitrage, which was to buy goods that were being sold cheap from one town and sell them in another town that had a high demand for them. It is a bit of a scam, but if you really think about it, that is similar to the way investors make their profits. But with the invention of the telegraph, this method was siezed. This whole passage was about breaking the time and space between communication with the use of the telegraph and then later with the telephone. I’m pretty sure that with all of the technology and instant communcation, whether it be from computer, cell phone, pda or any other device that is networked in some way with the rest of the world, there is practically no time and space in our transference of information.

Electricity Shrinking the World!

In Carey's selection "Time, Space, and the Telegraph" we witness how the telegraph had a dramatic impact in society especially from the economic standpoint. The telegraph allowed America to be closer and a tighter knit community than previously was allowed. Sellers and consumers were no longer isolated by path of foot, rather reached new peaks as communication allowed for more relatively similar prices throughout the nation. As Carey states like the computer, the telegraph” had its first and most profound impact on the conduct of commerce, government, and the military." This seems to be a trend in all technology. The reason the general public widely accepts an innovative technological advancement is because the government instills it upon us. If the government believes the advancement will help the nation economically or militarily, the people will eventually accept it. The telegraph had a wondrous impact on the security f the nation and also in the stock market. Like the telegraph the Internet was endorsed and pushed by the American government to be implemented across the country to unite not only as a leisure technology but it acts as way for the public to be monitored. Our privacy had to be compromised for our security and economical advancement. Technological advancement such as the telegraph helped turn markets from a locality to respond to a more nationalistic assessment.

iBomb:

The Virilio article was pretty interesting in that he concisely outlines the problem at hand, and does so in a direct and comprehensible manner; exactly what is needed to begin any sort of resistance. First and foremost we must develop a political economy responsive to this real-time technological culture. This requires a democratic technological culture, one we are far far far away from. Surprisingly, this article revealed just how little our "state representatives" know about their contingents, let alone their environment in general. This blatantly exposes the disorganized and confused state of our government. It's the largest threat to its existence and is seemingly insignificant.

In order for a democratic technoculture to exist, it must first be able to enforce the law, and it cant do that without first identifying the individuals it seeks to embrace/control. So basically we need something the equivalent of a passport to enter into the virtual domain. Because thats really what this whole issue is, Virtual. I fully agree with Virilio when he says "Globalisation is fake", virtualisation is real.
HA hows that for a contradiction... more on this later...

Information Communication: Gains and Losses

When we click on Internet Explorer and start surfing the web, most of us do not think of the potential hazards that are contained in the net. From false information from published articles to this fairly new idea of electronic identity theft we give up personal information and even our liberties in order to explore and take advantage of the benefits of the information highway.
One loss associated in cyberspace is the right to privacy. When we give up our personal information, we are not exactly sure where this information is headed. This idea really freaks me out. Once I bought a simple beaded necklace from this rinky dink website where I even had to ask my roommate if I should buy from it. But I still proceeded to go through the transaction. It had been at least two weeks and still no necklace but my money sure was gone from my bank account. So I then emailed them and it turned out there was a problem in processing my request. They sent me a complimentary necklace for the inconvenience. But still the thought that I was a victim to some kind of scam scared me silly. Since that day I stick to “well known and trusted” companies when shopping online.
Such transactions are gains in cyberspace. Obviously the people of technologically advanced countries believe the gains far outweigh the losses as we are dependent on such communication technologies in our everyday lives. “What will be gained from electronic information and electronic communication will necessarily result in a loss somewhere else. If we are not aware of this loss, and do not account for it, our gain will be of no value”. We are certainly aware of the losses and even take preventive measures such as passwords, electronic signatures, and software in order to protect ourselves but have generally accepted that such losses come with the territory of such a form of information and communication technology.

Communication Telegraph

I felt as though I was dying when I read this passge from our communication book. I had to reread every sentence like 200 times because I would drift off in the middle of it. I felt as if this passage was very weak compared to the book we read. The Victorian Internet was written for someone to read understand and learn. I felt like the article was just from someone with a PHD in big words who thought he was really smart. I wish more writers would write for readers to learn and comrehend instead of trying to make themselves seem smart. I also read about the man who had the wheat sent to his house and it was a mistaken telegraph code. In the passage it says that this was just a myth. In the Victorian Internet they said it really happened. I believe it really happened just because the book was acctually good and they backed it up. They told exactly what kind of code was mistaken and how the code got translated wrong.

Digging a hole to China

When I first read that "Until the telegraph, [transportation and communication] were synonymous", I was lost. The statement didn't make sense to me at all. Nowhere in my mind could I even relate the words, much less make them synonymous. I actually had to read the paragraph a couple times to catch it. It never occurred to me before that communication could only travel as fast as transportation. I mean, yes, I knew that mail used to be transported on ships and by land based transportation, but I never really thought about what that meant.
In an age of instantaneous communication, what would it mean for communication to depend on transportation? For instance, if I were so inclined, I could call someone in China and be speaking to them in what? say a minute or less. But sending them a message without a telephone, telegraph, or the internet is practically pointless. Even if you could somehow guarantee that the message would eventually arrive, "eventually" is still the key word. It could take months (or even a year?) by ship and truck. With that time frame and those odds, is there any point in sending a message at all? I'd have a better chance digging the proverbial hole to China and delivering it by hand.
The really scary part is that if I telephoned China, I probably wouldn't even acknowledge the fact that I was talking to someone on the other side of the earth. We take communication technology for granted to the point that it is invisible to us. And the main problem with something that integral is, what happens when its gone? It really does make the world smaller.

Invention

I actually enjoy reading this book somewhat, it could turn out to be the easiest 200 pages for a class textbook. It's different in it's discussion about technology in that it explains the process of invention. Which is something I tend to forget about. Windows came out with Vista, and I never even thought about the trial and error process over years Windows went through to create the new program. When I think about the next awesome technological advancement it's hard to not picture it as a sudden breakthrough or revelation by one person. I guess that is because when something is invented and is available for the public, it is sort of thrown at us instantly. From the movie, "National Treasure" I liked the line..."When Thomas Edison discovered the light bulb, he didn't fail 1000 times, he just found 1000 ways not to make a light bulb." In history class grade school, we are taught about the fact something was invented, and it's impact, but not the evolutionary process. I had no idea the first "successful" telegraph started as a signaling system of coded positions of wooden arms. Also, if the process for transferring simple signals through electricity was so difficult...I want to know more about transferring voice. How does a telephone exactly work? How do you think of something like that? How is my voice decoded in waves and reproduced almost instantaneously miles away in an audio form? It drives me crazy to think about inventing something so complex, but simple today.

I just found it awesome to see how many years, and how many people it took to create what we consider a simple mechanism. In today's time, a child in elementary school has the means to creat a simple telegraph. What will tomorrow's time laugh at us for, or be in awe about the simplicity of what we considered complex? Will the blackberry be huge in size, or primitive in capabilities?

Networking

It is amazing to see the in-depth coverage regarding the creation of pre-modern communication. One misconception I had about the telegraph was that it was invented by ones man with no varying difference. The fact however is the telegraph has a wide array of inventers and co-inventers throughout the world. (Primarily North America and Europe)

Optical telegraphs first dominated the network scene in France with inventor Claude Chappe. Napoleon later used this for European domination. The rest of Europe slowly begins adapting this network instead of the typical carrier service.

Electrical telegraphs were later invented my William Cooke and after initial struggle, was able to construct a line following the Great Western Railway.

Samuel Morse could’ve have been a lot more successful than he really was if more people believed in him and his telegraph. His Morse Code which was co-invented with Alfred Vail became an international standard and still used in modern society.

An evitable problem that the many of the entrepreneurs faced in starting the telegraph was governmental support. New inventions such as the telegraph needed backing from higher authority and for the most part were shunned. It wasn’t until the benefits such as catching thieves and cutting down messenger time dramatically was the government actually became interested.

Thesis 10-12

When starting to read each thesis, I feel as if Greenfield is speaking directly to me and addressing questions/topics/issues I've mulled over many times. In Thesis 10, he starts out by saying "everyware diverges from PC by Input." This much is true. The "human computer" requires much different input for the brain to "process" information. We can manipulate the computer peripherals to move about the world inside the computer, but which peripherals are we moving around in our world that is quickly becoming computerized. Some day we will simply think to open doors, complete transactions and probably even “shutdown” our body to go to sleep. Simply put, the senses are electronic impulses much like our computer counterparts. Thesis 11 is summed up by saying Everyware is Everywhere. At first we needed to head to information centers like libraries to get online or check email, but now all we have to do is open our laptop or PDA and be connected. Now Thesis 12 covers a little bit more of what I’ve always wondered about…how technology will help biological issues. The talk of the “high tech, sexy Band-Aid” sensing everything from heart rate, etc. also lets us feel better about our health but my pressing issue of privacy sets off an alarm to whether or not we are being monitored. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Dot Communication Technology

I found the Victorian Internet to be a very intriguing and eye-opening read. It was surprising to read how the Internet seems to be going through similar difficulties as the telegraph did in its early discovery and inception into society as a communication technology phenomenon.

Before reading this I viewed the telegraph and its invention as having a purely military usefulness. Useful for top secret codes to be transmitted during time of war with very primitive notation that could not be read by an uninformed public. It always seemed separate from public use or proprietary success. I failed to realize or read of its extremely large and critically analyzed rise and eventual acceptance throughout the world. I did not realize the widespread use of the technology as easily compared to the impacts of the telephone or the Internet. Nor did I ever read of the early forms of the telegraph as clever telegraph stations were set up with telescopes to communicate from relatively far distances for the time 17-18Th century period. It is extremely fascinating to see similar past skepticism to a technology that is so widely accepted today. We could predict the future for similar innovative communication technologies and learn to be less skeptic of their future applications from understanding these past communication technologies. As I read through I kept thinking of today's communication phenomenon of the Internet and what could possible be next to completely change the face of world interaction and communication. It will be interesting to see what it might be as we have come to find with the internet and generations before with the telegraph we will not be able to realize life without it.

Tough Road To The Telegraph

I will admit, I was a little disappointed when I saw that we had to read the entire The Victorian Internet, but once I started it I found it to be quite interesting. I found myself always trying to locate a good stopping point to take breaks but couldn’t because I wanted to find out what happened next.

I never knew that the telegraph had that much history in the development. I have always thought someone just took a few years maybe and came out with the electronic telegraph that we all know. I would have never imagined that the inventors that came up with this idea would have to convince others of its importance. I couldn’t understand why it took so long for everybody to agree that the electronic telegraph was useful, especially after they witnessed the affect of the original telegraph. It was interesting when I read that people of the church said that it was a little too close to “black magic” because there are a lot of time that we cast out new ideas or technology because we can’t “understand” it. I wonder if that’s how our civilization reacted to say, wireless networking. I wonder if we thought that it was a “stupid” idea or found it unnecessary, and now wireless networking it used almost everywhere we are. We can read books like this and tell ourselves that the people back then were so naive because they didn’t believe that the new technology would be useful and it turns out to be a big hit, but if you think about it, we still do the same thing today with new advances and inventions.

The Telegraph, Ubiquitous computing, and Implementation

A lack of technology is not always the missing factor for a device or concept to become reality, in fact it’s more or less the human interaction and implementation (or lack of) that is the demise of technology. Ubiquitous computing is perfectly plausible in terms of the hardware needed; this is evident in research that IBM, PARC, Sony, MIT, and others have been doing for at least a decade. Or, if you do not believe me, talk a walk into a Radioshack and notice the incredible amount of small devices that have become artificially smarter thanks to some circuits and processors.

Everyware relates to the telegraph specifically in this way, the two main ingredients needed for the telegraph to work had already been identified: electricity and the idea of sending messages through wire. The latter had long been speculated through an urban legend involving “magic needles”, not to mention research people had been doing. If the technology needed to power such paradigm inventions, such as the telegraph and ubiquitous computing, are possible long before their adoption, then it is plausible they just lack proper human interfacing and practical implementation.

I find it intriguing that Claude Chappe, the inventor of the “first practical telecommunication system” (Wikipedia), took up scientific research “in particular, the problems associated with building an electrical signaling system” when he in fact would be the first to invent one, minus the use of electricity and wires. Like one can research electrical signaling systems before the adoption of the telegraph, I think it’s wise to research ubiquitous computing before its adoption like this class is doing. Preparedness for the future seems to be a non ending battle, of course with global literacy, what else could one expect.

Revolution

The power of the telegraph to make peace seems to be over qualified by the population early in its service. As we can see today, being able to talk to everyone in the world is pretty overrated, and many conflicts arise because of this fact specifically. It is hard to imagine information taking so long to move, especially growing up in the Internet age. I also thought it was interesting how the news used to operate back then. Can you imagine if the New York Times decided to hold out a very crucial piece of information just because they were worried about if there would be enough news the next day? That seems insane now a days, as the news is only as good as its promptness. The prase no news is good news must have come about after the days of the telegraph, because before that no news meant that your newspaper was in bad shape for that.

The relationships that developed over the wire was also something that sparked my interest. The more that I think about it, it is not that much of a stretch (with all the Internet dating that occurs now a days). It still seems that developing a relationship with someone that you have never even seen or wrote would be frowned upon by the families of both parties. Also, the marriage by telegraph does not seem like it would be legally binding, as I do not figure you could get married over the Internet and it be considered very legit.

from sticks and stones to

Adam Greenfield's, "Thesis 10: Everyware necesitates a new set of human interface modes" (Greenfield pp. 40).
When I read Greenfield's "Thesis 10", within the context of Standage's, "The Victorian Internet" I realized I could apply Greenfield's afore mentioned thesis to Standage's history of the telegraph. Certainly not a huge leap, but interesting still. The telegraph provided a wealth of new "interface modes" for the people of its era. People had to familiarize themselves with the new technology along with the host of assorted changes which accompianied it. From its beginnings in France, to the successful trans-atlantic cable which connected the telegraph networks of North America and Europe, the progression of telegraph technologies continually altered the way communication between human beings occured, and therefore, the general way of life for the whole of the modern world.
Duh, right? Well then I decided to look at the development of printed texts in the context of Greenfield's thesis. The development of the printing press and moveable type offered up to the world a wealth of new "interface modes". We've seen a prime historical example in the Gugenheim Bible. The ability to convey information upon a page, and to do it exactly the same way every time, changed the way humanity existed.
Duh again. The point is this: we've always discovered new "interface modes", I think it must be part of the human expierience, our experience. From the time our ancestors took a muddy hand and placed it on the wall of some cave to mark his passage; to figuring out that sharpend sticks and fire work a hell of a lot better at bringing down game than running after it screaming, humanity has always found new and better modes of interface with the enviroment. The coming changes (interface modes) will likely be more rapid than any of the ones we've expereinced. I was initiallly uncomfortable with the idea of such rapid, ubiquitous change in my life time...but now, as I've written this I find myself not so uneasy. Hell, we've done well so far, we'll most likely, probably be allright.

Expansion

The part out of The Victorian Internet that interested me the most was the part that described the expansion of the telegraph wires and the telegraph technology. In 1844 there was a few dozen miles of wire with a short message taking up to 10 weeks. Within 30 years there were over 650,000 miles of wire, 30,000 miles of submarine cable, and 20,000 towns and villages connected. A short message went from 10 weeks to taking as little as 4 minutes. This expansion for this day in time is amazing to me. The telegraph blew up and revolutionized the world. I found it incredibly amazing that they connected the world that fast. Today I relate it to the internet and I am hoping that within about 5 years everywhere will have a wireless T1 connection. That is what I would relate this to. If that was so I would be amazed and super happy. I know it is possible and its just a matter of time before it happens. Todays world is going wireless in my opinion. I feel that this will be our next step to everyware. What are your thoughts of what is coming with the internet of today? How do you think it will be advanced and changed within the next 5 years or so? Do you think it will ever be possible to have a wireless T1 connecting everyone in the world?

At A Standstill....

It is amazing when you look back at the beginning stages of the development for a technology that is used so frequently in our everyday lives. It's hard to believe that almost 3 decades ago, the world was connected by a wire, via land and even water, to communicate and now where wire is not convenient, we replace it by wireless technology. With the victorian internet as an example of an invention created many many years ago, have we come to a standstill in developing new technologies?

Transportation (such as cars, planes, etc), ways of communication (tv, radio, internet, etc) and medicine have only been improved since the time they were created. But what have we developed lately that is truly new and original? We have developed so fast in the world of science and technology that we are almost left with nothing else to invent. This is probably not much of a concern right now considering we still have many things left to discover, mainly in the medical field such as the cure for AIDS and cancer. So what happens when we accomplish that? Will we become bored and eventually just let the computers run our lives? The idea seems crazy, but what big advances to do we have left? I guess the next step may be continuing to pursue life on other planets. Who knows!

Condemnation and Fame

I admit to that fact that I’ve said at least once in my past history classes, “why do I have to learn this? I’m not going to use it later.” Many times after that I have eaten my words, and still today books like these show me that there will always be something more to learn, something more to know about and to be interested in. George Santayana once wrote in The life of reason, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” and I completely agree with him. If we do not learn from ours (and others) past mistakes, we’d just forge onwards wasting time by making the same mistakes and getting nowhere in what we are trying to accomplish.

This book has shown me the similarities of not only how communication has developed over the years, but also how society reacts to new ideas, ways of thinking, and things that they do not understand. Many who try to change our world are ridiculed till death then recognized either after they’re dead or because they’re dead. What is with our society that condemns what they do not understand, like how the electric telegraph was considered too close to black magic at one point in time?

This even shows with famous (during our time of course) painters, composers and writers. Emily Dickinson only published 7 poems in her lifetime, Van Gogh sold only one poem in his lifetime, Gauguin was broke most of his life, and Bach was only really famous 100 years after his death when they finally started to recognize what an amazing composer he was. Is this a trend that will continue? This is common knowledge to most, yet we still appreciate things the most only after they’re gone. I guess that just leaves me to wonder if some things are better off appreciated when you don’t have to deal with them anymore, or if we are just better at judging one’s accomplishments only after they’re gone and accomplished the end of their own life.

What Hath God Wrought

This Victorian Internet parallel is pretty interesting. Rather ignorantly, I was shocked as to how similar the development of these comtechs were. I mean, the telegraph developers didnt have a cool name like DARPA to work under, but they both got their grassroot startup from a select few genious' minds.

To delve further into the details of the telegraph:

transatlantic telegraph

This book really shows just how precisely history repeats itself: although sometimes difficult to see through the fog of misrepresentations and peoples need to make themselves look good in writing. The network diagram of the Internet and telegraph systems are strikingly identical, with the Internet replacing the human elements present in the transmission channels of the telegraph. I also got a strange sense of the people in this Industrial Age communication system as a metaphor for the various parts of a computer system. The parts which we take for granted in computers (semi-conductors, processors, etc.)had to be physically transacted by teams of people and rudimentary[to us] office processing. I really liked the discussion of the telegraphy offices and the stock market.. cant wait to get to the ciphers!

In response to the former post:

a bit of the cable... I like that part where Tiffany's started selling the cable as jewlery.. hilarious

A little irony was felt when they first completed the transatlantic mission and the mass hysteria broke out. Do I smell the '00.com bubble bursting? or is it just the smoke from NY's city hall nearly burning to the ground. Crazy Americans... always jumping the gun...

One more thing, how crazy is it that the 30 yr. rule has been in effect for so much of our history(although it may seem to be loosing grip...you decide)

1816 - first working telegraph
1845 - spark of widespread adoption
1872-5 - full adoption and the effects are in full force. [this is where gov steps in and attempts to catch up from mistakes]

Really good read

Technicalities

The Victorian Internet is one of the most interesting books I have read in awhile. I had no idea how the telegraph worked and came into existence, much less the other signaling systems before it. And I have always wondered exactly how they got that pipeline to work across the Atlantic. It just seemed impossible. I think that has been my favorite part so far, although the book doesn’t explain the technical aspect of it very well. It just seems to me that there would be too many problems for it to actually work. The book didn’t address all the problems. It said the cable was laid on large raised plateaus in one part, but was it that way for each attempt? Otherwise the length of the cable would have to be adjusted for depth, and that wasn’t mentioned. For that matter, how was the length determined in the first place? It seemed like the cable was doomed to fail, if not by breaking every time they tried to lay it then by just plain not working. And while they explain that it wasn’t working because Dr. Whitehouse made the conducting core too small and put too much voltage in the induction coils, I can’t find anywhere that they explain what in the hell a conducting core or induction coil actually is or does. I like this book, don’t get me wrong, it definitely makes for a good story, but it really doesn’t do much in the way of explaining how the story is actually possible.