Some interesting articles re: IT and, of course, society.

The two links below deal with IT and its impact on society.

The first deals with the use of virtual reality in the treatment of soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Interesting to see how IT coalesces with society, in this case through queuing the the stress which causes the debilitating fear in veterans through the manipulation of VR instead of hypnosis or other means. VR puts the patient back in the violent stressful scenario but allows the experience to be associated with a safe environment. I can imagine the spread of this technique beyond PTSD into the treatment of phobias etc. Neat.

The second recounts the dispute between a law professor and the NFL and, by proxy, Youtube over the posting by the professor of a NFL game. I found it interesting because we can see how IT continues to reshape our society, in this case our legal system and the rights, vis-a-vis, of individuals and corporations.

Using virtual reality in treating post traumatic stress disorder in veterans of the war in Iraq: http://www.defense-update.com/products/v/VR-PTSD.htm

Law professor puts the NFL/youtube in their place: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070320-nfl-fumbles-dmca-takedown-battle-could-face-sanctions.html

Bits and pieces

I really like the way all the technologies seem to connect to one another. Throughout the semester, we keep seeing the same things over and over in different readings. Here, they talk about early film and photographs. I also think its hilarious that they tried to use 35mm movie film for computers. None of the rest of the article was of particular interest to me, except the idea of the virtual environments where the user interacts with animated characters and the interface with the “human” computer. I think that it’s absolutely awesome that a computer exists that can guess our mood and react accordingly. I never considered the intelligence behind the computer player on games either. I mean, those have been around for awhile, right? It’s hard to believe we have had the technology to do something like that and not taken it any further. I know there were strong limitations to what the computer could (and can) do, but they still should have tried. I also never knew that the ads and banners and such on a website changed according to each viewer. I always thought they were random. Am I reading that wrong? Because it kind of freaks me out that I’m being tracked for my advertisement preferences. I must have read that wrong…I’m writing this late at night. Someone help me out. And anyway, if they are tracking my preferences, why do I keep getting male enhancement ads? Lol…

Whose fault is it then?

I agree with Thesis 46 in the fact that error is commonly pushed off on someone other than the user of technology. It's easy to blame the complicated boxes in front of you and one-sided shouting matches usually ensue. But fast forward to a time when all of our "ubiquitous computing" is done with simply "real life" interaction. Though some of these technologies already exist like supermarket doors opening while people walk up to it. When is the last time someone blamed the machine for screwing up something as simple as walking. Though I do wonder what the day will be like when such inputs do exist. The blame should be shifted towards people for messing up mundane tasks but I still think we will revel in our intelligence at complicated systems that pick up commands and compute by simple human nature. If I rub my hungry stomach, the kitchen bot should make me a sandwich. Although, shift or no shift of blame, I still think the "inhuman" machines will take responsibility for mishaps though not of their own account.

I never really got into comics as a child but during high school I was able to make a couple of those flip through books with a simple animation. I also made simple animations using Adobe Photoshop which helped me better relate to the reading. The way I would make my animations longer in Photoshop was either by making slight adjustments of the content of each frame or by tweening in between frames which meant that there would be more time to get from one frame to the next. I never really thought about how the shape of the frame could make it seem longer or shorter.
Throughout school I always thought PowerPoint was the “way to go” probably because it was instilled in us through teachers. I guess because it was so simple and easy to use and as mentioned in the reading it made us get to some kind of point in some kind of organized manner. But when making a PowerPoint to be presented in front of an audience the content wasn’t suppose be read word for word but rather a guideline to make sure you did not forget something or veer off track. After reading Tufte’s text I realized how there is this limit that we can cut out before the point we are trying to get across is no longer true or just doesn’t make sense. I also realized because of the NASA PowerPoint presentations that I need to make sure I bullet or emphasize the important points as not to be misleading or detract from information that may be more relevant.

Pinning Down Power Point?

Tufte raises some eyebrows with his views and stand on power point and it being used as a leading medium of instruction. Some views he presented were the stagnant nature of presentation, and its inability to captivate the viewer. It’s very important to understand what Power Point wishes to accomplish and what it doesn’t include in its spectrum.

PowerPoint was never designed to be an audio/visual delight with intensive graphics and eye-catching presentation. Its very purpose was to objectively list data with some pictorial presence mainly used as a static presentation and not an mpeg file. To add some color, think of a projector (the machines used to put up information by means of a transparent sheet reflecting information with the help of a light bulb) that we all have seen in some class that is not only hard to read but is in fact, so dry that we might never really have even looked at it with much interest. Now compare this to the Power Point presentations that do lack some modern graphic marvels, but display and present the information in a much better format and style.

So, while looking at any form/medium of presentation/technology, we must first think about what the objective of this medium is. Yes, the objective in many cases is fluid and does evolve over time but the concrete purpose does not. Would we rather the Professors just scribble some bullet points on the whiteboard and spend all our time trying to decipher the text, and infinitely worse, copy it word for word. I think having an electronic medium makes for better learning as it easier to distribute and follows a proper layout and system.

It is up to the author of presentations to be as creative as possible in his or her efforts to catch the eye of the audience. I’m not Power Point’s most loyal fan, but since my exposure with finance has been heavy, I have lived and breathed MS Excel and PP during my stints and assure you that is perhaps the most effective tool when some but not all information needs to be communicated. The purpose of this tool was never to be content heavy, but outline heavy. Perhaps, that is what our PP editors and neglecting.

Just a thought!

Power Pointless

"Why are we having this" class? (Tufte 31)

I have thought this many times in classes that have used powerpoint to present the course notes through a listing of bullet points accompanied by further repetition from the presenter. The format not only leads to a completely boring presentation but also and uninformative one-sided discussion that often is straight our of class text. Tufte definitely addresses the pointlessness of PP use in presenting any sort of educational information.

At first, I felt Tufte was being a little harsh to the powerpoint system seeing that I have used it in class presentations. Yet after thinking back on those presentations I had to provide extensive explanation for the lack of visual and contextual commentary PP lends. I agree with Tufte that PP should be banned from being used as a primary tool for education, especially in the case of NASA, having sadly played a harmful role in the Columbia incident. Yet PP may still have merit when being used to present a series of pictures for a story board. Last semester I used PP to present a comic like series of images and it worked well for that sort of format.

In my class this morning I was unable to grasp the context of the topic being discussed through a bulleted list of vagueness. I am definitely going to present this article to some of my professors who rely on PP presentations and feel that by posting these vague bulleted discussions online that they will somehow clear the confusion over the topic.

Repersentation of Time in Comics

The representation of time in comics is a topic that I have never pondered in the slightest. I really enjoyed how the article was written overall, and specifically how the author used the medium of a comic strip to most effectively demonstrate the techniques used. The most interesting thing to me was the fact that motion no one even attempted to portray motion in a graphic medium until the 1800’s. I have never really been that into comics as I am sure you can see, but I have read a few here and there. The importance of the techniques pioneered by the artists of Japan is not fully appreciated by many. The ways serious animation is done in America today would be way different if they had not worked so hard to figure out how to display motion.
While I liked the article, the way the artist portrayed the use of word bubbles as overcomplicated and hard to understand. Anyone worth two cents can figure out what comes after what in a comic, as it is common sense. The author dwelled on this point too much. Also, the author showed all the different kinds of borders, but did not discuss any of the implied meanings behind any of them. I was left feeling a little confused over this, and wish he had made a point to clarify this.

Communication & Power Point

Edward R. Tufte’s 31 page Power Point bashing pamphlet was very insightful to the ways of flawed communication and poorly designed presentations. Power Point presentations are usually boring and pointless, but with that said, why not give tips on how to make them interesting and
meaningful? Looking at the demographic of people who actively use Power Point is also another clue to why the presentation might be lacking. Just think of all the millions of Windows PCs out there, and then the amount that have Office, that’s a pretty high number. I don’t see him arguing on why not to use Internet Explorer, why is that?, oh yes it’s a lost cause because a majority of people do not even realize what “software” really is. “I can uninstall Windows? But I don’t see it in the Add/Remove Programs!”

In general I would like to believe that The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint is more concerned with a lack of efficient communication happening in corporations and businesses:

“Any organization which designs a system… will inevitably produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure” (Melvin E. Conway 7)

Effective communication should not be put into a Content Wizard (especially if Microsoft designed it, although Office is their only one product worth owning) and Power Point is often used as the weapon of choice for slaughtering a presentation. Tufte emphasizes on real substances, with words, and paragraphs, although I am unfamiliar with this technique, I hope soon to be able to communicate efficiently with it.

Tufte has a large hate especially for Nasa and its affiliates use of PP, although I would hope no major decision was ever made solely off of power point, especially if its Nasa. Reading geeky reports is suppose to be their bread and butter. From my experiences with the tech industry, unless you are into cutting edge design trends (Apple, Xbox team, Sony) more than likely you will give a poorly designed, data filled presentation, which in my mind is not so bad.

Comic Strips

In McCloud’s document, he describes another form of communication through time frames in comics. In a world where perception of time is hard to judge, comic book authors manipulate several characteristics of the strip to accentuate several aspects of time. Some tools authors use is stretching out the boxes in horizontal length, this works by forcing the eye to spend more time on that particular frame which in turn stretches out the time. Other clever tools that writers use is the shape of the box, certain shapes evoke a particular response from the readers such as exclamation or tension for non standard frames. Splitting a large frame into several smaller frames allows the reader to understand the events in the order that it happens. For instance when a large frame is introduced, we are unaware if the events are sequential or instantaneous. A large strip can contain a lot material in the sense of activities going on. By breaking the frames up , the reader would be able to follow the path of words sequentially. This is much different than most standard media content such as the television where time is measured the same as it is in reality. There is no rule on comic book frame calibration for time; therefore writers have such articulate ways to help demonstrate time.

PowerPoint Woes

I doubt many of us in this class are going to completely disagree with Tufte's views on PP. We all despise the endless amounts of slides when we're in a lecture. I've always found a presentation without PowerPoint much more...enthralling if that is at all possible.

But his attacks are more at how PP allows people to give a bad presentation. That if used by the medial presenter it becomes the cliche PP presentation of blandness and generalizations. I really liked his analysis of the NASA slide. This just really illustrated what I have always thought about PP. The "very big bullet". The misleading title. The limited amount of information. It really shows how within the confines of PP a presentation becomes faulty. Users feel like they have an outline to follow. Each slide must have a point, as illustrated by each title, and then broken down into bullets of information. With the limited space, users feel obligated to squeeze in as much as possible, which leads to "phrase fragments". Instead of standing in front of the class and speaking continuously and elaborately, people spell it out slowly as to prove each significant point; Bullet by bullet to prove that they have come to some kind of decision. Like in the NASA presentation. Instead of just speaking about the incident and analysis, the presenters crammed information into slides and generalized a conclusion without much elaboration. When giving a presentation one should never be reading something, unless it's a verbatim quoting. With the way people tend to use PP, what they could do is just stand at the front of the class not talking, just clicking a mouse, and have the audience copy the slides.

But this isn't because that's all the can be done with PP. Personally I don't mind using PP when giving a speech or presentation, but I don't use it much. If used correctly, it should be like the slides aren't really even there. The presenter should be informed and knowledgeable enough to speak without them. The only reason I seem to use PP is because I'm required to do so according to class. The slides become a visual organization of information for the audience. Not a guideline of your presentation. The presentation comes from your head, and shouldn't be a bulleted speech. Even putting general ideas, reading them one by one, and elaborating is a PP presentation fault...it's boring. Sometimes, I put information on the slides that I don't say or talk about, just a way to get out more information than I have time to say. I think powerpoint presentations tend to make the presenter focus on reading an abbreviated, animated, illustrated essay instead of just talking about what they know.

comics and powerpoint

I've collected comics since I was ten years old. My mom used them as bribes to get me reading. It worked, every weekend she'd have to drive me to the comic shop as long as my grades remained good. I've never given much thought to the substance of comics before I read the article in eResv. Sure I payed attention to the characters, the plot etc. but never to the framework of the comic. The reading brought this framework to my attention and elucidated the high level of reasoning involved in reading comics. The reader must orient him/herself within the flow of the frames, interpret and place accompanying text in order to progress though the story. Comics are cool and I'm going to have to drag out my collection and get reacquainted with some old friends.
PowerPoint on the other hand, well it just plain sucks. I've always thought this, Tufte just validated the opinion I formed through sitting through PP lecture after PP lecture. Sure PP is great when it comes to cramming for an exam, PP make great flashcards and really help if the exam is multiple choice. I agree with Tufte, PP lacks motive flow, its static and limiting, boring and incomplete. The whole NASA PP failure really drives this home. I still think PP make good flashcards, but that's probably it.Therefore, comics rock and PP is lame. Comics involve the reader in the progression of the action, the reader navigates and sets the pace. PP presentations force feed generalized points.

*.ppt

After reading Tufte’s essay on how bad PowerPoint is as a tool for communication, I am glad to see that I am not the only one. Being in a corporate environment for several years, I have seen plenty of PowerPoint presentations pass me by – ranging from presentations about how the company is doing as a whole for the whole fiscal year to a way to communicate a local fundraiser that is going on next week.

From a technical standpoint in the IT department, PowerPoint presentations are killer on the exchange server. A simple message that could be written in an email (or even a Word document) about a bake sale happening next week taking up maybe 5kb of server space could balloon into 14MB because of some unnecessary slide transitions and music. I’d be more frustrated because I didn’t get the gist of the entire message within seconds because I had to wait for the song to load.

Then if I look at it from a graphical standpoint, I can understand why PowerPoint is the tool for presenting data. One reason is because it is available. Corporations will always purchase the whole Office suite so if you have an option to be “creative,” why not? Clipart-away! PowerPoint tends to be an outlet for getting out of the norm of a routine. This I can’t really fault the application, but the content needs to be meaningful, not filled with cheesy images.

I have been in many meetings, where I have walked out and don’t remember a single thing from the presentation other than maybe the comic strip placed at the beginning to give us a chuckle before the meeting started. I have stacks and stacks of presentations that were printed out as a “reference,” but I can’t quite recalling needing to ever do them. Go figure.

Like Tufte said about lousy presentations, it is “the fault of inept PP users, not the fault of PP” and I totally believe that.

Comic Stripper

Most of the time for me learning is quite boring and I forget things very easily. I loved how McCloud did his work to help people see how these comics work. I really understood the messages he was trying to get across. Maybe its just me that learns better this way, I dont know. It just stuck into my mind much better than looking at some boring article. I felt like the learning comics he did where for people more to read and understand. Most other articles make me just want to drift to sleep. It was also very interesting to me how the time works in comics. Before reading his explanation of how the time works in just one single frame, I already had in my mind a knowing that each bubble was a different amount of time. One thing I began pondering was about the chinese who read from right to left. If I would have done that then the whole thing would have been very backword. I began chuckling at the was the different countries would do their comics very different from the US.

Powerpoint's Dreadful Record

PowerPoint is the cause of how many deaths, lost jobs, and business downfalls?!? <-- *insert scoff there* I understand that PowerPoint is not the best presentation tool for anything that you aren’t going to keep funny, short, and sweet. Yet, I think that Professor Tufte was a bit over the top and opinionated I did like Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg PowerPoint which I thought was hilarious. He also had a good point for people who rely on PowerPoint for important matters such as dealing with life and death and/or teaching situations. The last time I used PowerPoint it was for a high school environmental science presentation, because that is where they encourage you to use it, high school. I know anyone who has dealt with inept PowerPoint users knows what I’m talking about or for anyone who has ever taken a class where the professor decides to teach each an hour and a half class with 250 slides stock full of information that 1 you can’t differentiate what is really important and what is just good to know and 2 numbs your brain until all the coffee in the world couldn’t help you using the wall as a giant hard pillow. Yet, I have to admit that I am pro PowerPoint. No matter how many people misuse the little bullets for main points instead of small details (scientists) or read off every darn word as it shows up (teachers and students), it is my savior since I am one of those 10% who cannot speak in public without turning beat red with voice and hands shaking uncontrollably. To my backup when my mind has decided to turn into a big pile of frightened jello, PowerPoint, I don’t care how hopeless and pfluff filled you are and though I will probably never use you again, I salute you.

time frames and film

The eres article “time frames” was a nice change from the normal readings we do for this class. For me, it was much easier to read and understand the reading in the form of a comic strip. I think it made me slow down and actually process the information instead of just skimming over it and not remembering it. I liked the discussion about time and motion in the panels. I think that even though we see the images as a still moment in time, we fill in the gaps (the motion) with our imaginations. It is pretty much like the way film works, on a much slower scale. In film, there are tons of still images flashed by so fast that your brain sees only motion because it can’t process all the pictures. The cartoon panels are comparable. Although they aren’t moving, they still seem to signal motion from one panel to the next because time is passing, so our brains still fill in the motion that should be there. I mean, we don’t actually SEE the movement like with movies, but we know that it is supposed to happen and it goes through our minds while we look from panel to panel.

Also on a random note, I thought the power point pamphlet was great. I never realized just how little information was conveyed by those things. I have had so many professors and teachers over the years that have used them, and I’ve written more than my share, too. It just interested me to see it in a new light, from a different point of view. I never really thought about the bad side of the program, so it was good to take a look at it.

Social implications of Everyware Ch 40,41,42

These three chapters discuss the various foreseeable and unforeseeable social implications in ubiquitous technology.

Fears of seamless steady and customizable information flow and control is discussed in the first chapter. Where will the physical customizable controls be in an "imperceptible system?" This question poses an interesting dilema of "seamlessness." Yet the question is not whether we should be able to have complete control over the system rather what form will the control take and will it be restricted or segregated within society.

The emergent implication of the system and what it will be used for and how it will be utilized is an extremely important and unpredictable question discussed in the next chapter. Most future applications for this system of everyware are unforeseeable and for this reason there is a sense of social danger with its integration. Society must not see the technology as a separate entity from our culture or ourselves because everyware and the emeregent technology is a cyborg anthropological system that is embodied within each individual who is culturally encountered by it. Because everyware has social awareness ingrained in its creation, society must be safe with its integration.

The way in which the logistics of the system are decided are as important as the system itself and it's potential use in society. This is most evidently described through Lawrence Lessig's discussion of the webs architectural implications and freedoms of design. He speaks of the way in which the design of the "end to end" web architecture lead way for many social interactive technologies unforeseeable but only possible by way of the logistical setup of the system. He also speaks about a social consciousness of design as to be aware of future unpleasant applications used by the system. Overall their are many social fears in the only partially foreseeable future of the everyware system.

341234 meet 234123

In Thesis 40-42, Greenfield continues to give us a glimpse of how technology will be incorporated into our ambient surroundings. In Thesis 40, we get a look how some biotechnology would allow a typical person to monitor their diet and exercise. Technology would be embedded in our refrigerator, microwave, and even inside ourselves. This would allow the mainstream public to become healthier in general and reduce the increasing obesity problem. The technology would serve as a purpose to control our eating behaviors into one that is most beneficial to us.
Other points that Greenfield makes is that in order for technologies like these to prosper, they must first be affordable and widely used/accepted. Without these attributes, the technology would end up failing due to a lack of support. Remember, technology is made by companies, and it is their job to suck in as much revenue as possible.
In Thesis 42, I was interested in the RIFD tags that would be implemented in us. Cars would also carry the tags and would help identify the people in a crash or possible identity seekers for cops. Although all this might sound as though it is creating a Utopian society, Greenfield clearly points out how this can lead to discrimination. The tags would not just reveal our names, but also our sex, ethnicity, and other personal information. If such RIFD reading technology was implemented into architecture, conflicts may occur. People could get racially discriminated against and not allowed to enter the certain building/room because either the RIFD reader has a bug in the system, or the creator has a personal bias against certain people. In any regards, we must be careful with such advancements in how we use it.

mirror, mirror on the refrigerator

After reading the everyware theses for this week, I can’t lie, I’m a little worried. I hope I never see the day when my refrigerator has talked to my bathroom scale and tells me I’m getting fat and need to run more and eat better. I mean, how guilty will that make people feel? I know it would be useful in a health sense, but I can’t see very many people buying into that kind of ubiquitous computing. It just makes you feel bad. It’s like the gym coach, physician, and mother all in one, stuck to your refrigerator door and your bathroom mirror, and what’s more, it nags and nags, but it never goes away. Sounds like everyone’s worst nightmare right? And besides, what does the magic mirror tell the clinically obese every morning? I bet its not “Try adding leafy greens to today’s meals”, if you know what I mean. I just think that particular idea would be really demoralizing, and I don’t think it would change the fact that America is overweight. If we want to change that, we’re going to have to make the scale talk to the floor and tell it to go into treadmill mode once in awhile.

On a separate and unrelated note, I never considered the fact that the social security number is a national identity number. I know, it’s fairly obvious, but who really thinks about that? I just wonder how it came into existence in the first place-a national identity number sounds entirely too close to the rfid tag identification systems, and I think the evidence speaks for itself that that hasn’t been a very popular idea. I can’t imagine how the American public would let itself be identified individually at all times. If that isn’t an invasion of privacy I don’t know what is. I guess that it’s just evidence that there might be a future of continual identification by rfid tags at all times after all. Kind of scary, isn’t it?

The Nanotechnology Talk

I attended the recent talk on Nanotechnology given by visiting scholar Andrew Jamison on Tuesday. I enjoyed listening to his views and thought of sharing some here. Dr. Jamison started the talk with a brief, but what I thought to be very informative, historical account of technology. Remember, this talk focuses more on the cultural implications of technology rather than the future of it. He presents his views in a very interesting fashion. He describes these different accounts by calling them ‘Long waves of Technological change’. I know many readers will probably not take the time to go into great detail about this. Hence, I’m providing a brief synopsis of the talk.

There are 4 main phases in which these long waves of technological change took place.

1. 1800-1850 (Machanization)
-Romanticism/cooperation phase
-Samuel Morse and the telegraph (Romantic writer & inventor)

2. 1850-1900 (Capitalism)
-Socialism/ Popoulism phase
-Age of Capital

3. 1900-1950 (Imperialism)
-Age of Empire
-Electricity, automobiles, chemicals, airplanes (invention)
-Players: Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Edison (Phonograph)
-This phase also gave birth to a new sentiment: "Lets bring the life back in technology"
-Lewis Mumford, said "The whole industrial world -and instrumentalism is highest conscious expression"

4. 1950-2000 (Technoscience)
-The new Industrial state
-Atomic/Nuclear power
-Rise of transnational technology corporations (IBM)
-Japan's contribution to technology making it efficient and profitable due to cultural reasons

Think of this:

-Transistors in 1950's --> led to consumer electronics --> led to Personal Computers

-Rachel Carson
Environmental Technology -->Biologist turned technologist -->led to hybrid energy

My take: The talk was indeed more historic than I had imagined. But it did give an insight into 'Hubris' and 'Hybrid' etc. The above mentioned patterns, in my mind show how increase in technology over time leads to progressive development, meaning it increases the rate of change. There's a lot more that happened in the later 'waves' than the one's that precede it. We are in, what is popularly called, the 'Age of Information'. And in this age, 'Converging Technologies' seem to be ruling the roost. Think of 'info-,bio-,cogno-,nano- technology. All culminating towards Information Technology or IT. IT is a term that is thrown around very often these days, but rarely is it properly understood.

Thoughts on the Television..Then and Now

The ‘Communications in History’ reading made me think about how technology transitions! The television has probably impacted our society the most out of all the other forms of media that have come up over time (I don’t consider the Internet to be a form of media, but a culmination of all). I would like to think about this in two ways. One, the transition process, and the other being the implications it has today.

So, the television went through a series of revelations. Not just in the equipment and devices space, but its impact on the society as a whole. Initially, it was set up as a source of providing information and essential broadcasting. In the post WWII era, the television enjoyed major popularity and it was only time before it became an essential part of our society. The primary purpose of television was widely understood to provide news reporting to inform people about what was going on. This did not eat into the Print Media’s share, but incorporated it in its scope. Historically, many speeches that were given, were being aired on TV (MLK, Jr. etc) to address a larger population. This was in addition to the speeches being published in the daily newspapers etc. There seemed to be an interesting role play between print media and television. News readers were regarded as gurus in the fields of reporting and the content was treated as final authority(then). Movies like, ‘Good Night and Good Luck!’ give us an insight into what the so called ‘battles’ were like between News & media journalists (Edward Murrow) and politicians (Joe McCarthy). This was also a result of the TV along with the Radio being the only electronic source of information present. Access to information, was limited. The avenues were scarce. The sources were restricted.

Now, think of today’s day and age. Would Edward Murrow enjoy the same amount of popularity on CNN in 2007? Lou Dobbs certainly doesn’t. The television has transitioned our society. And this impact, transcends politics. I mean I too enjoy reading about the history of the television, but I’m more interested in knowing what the implications are. And, the implications today are vast. The TV plays a heavy role in people deciding their political preference. Democrats and Republicans use the TV as their primary tool. War on Iraq seems even worse when Anderson Cooper goes to Iraq and shows us real footage of our war heroes and what they’re going through. Obama seems more appealing when we watch his rallies in southern Illinois on TV and hear the loud cheers he gets. The Presidential Debate, perhaps the most important debate in the deciding who will lead the most powerful nation in the world are showcased to the entire world LIVE on TV!

So, is the TV a mere source of information now? I think it’s become a major part of our culture, society and life. And it’s worth everyone’s while to sit back and think about this entire transition to better understand how technology has pierced every form of though and information.

“Everyware (finally) insinuates itself into transactions never before subject to technical intervention.”

So, I finally found very interesting evidence in thesis 34 touching on a few key, and largely unexplored facets of the effects of modern technology and its ‘intervention’.

Case in point: Greenfield talk’s about the Brazilian company IHOUSE selling a unique product, which they call the Smart Hydro ‘intelligent bathtub’. I’m sure many of you who read this piece were not too perturbed about this insight and the description. Perhaps, quite a few of you actually thought; “My ‘cool’ personalized, digitalized, computerized and all in all, heavily technologized bathtub”. I’m personally a little cautious of this level of intervention. The question of ‘where to draw the line’ remains largely unanswered. In my opinion, everything that increases the efficiency of our actions is good. And technology seems to be our best friend in this endeavor. But what if this efficiency comes at a risk. Risk of dependency, or still worse, risk of health hazards. Having a technologized bath, for example seems strange. Not just because of its present far fetched feeling (I say this knowing that it will be in some Bond movie soon, and Bill Gates probably owns one already), but I cant seem to come to terms with the feeling of technology affecting our lives in such a way, that we are so dependent on it, that even the slightest absence of it will make us uncomfortable.

Will there be electronic tents and camps when school children go for trekking and camping trips? What about the lessons learnt from adventure and survival.

Adventure of getting lost in the jungles. Wait, is that even possible anymore?! What about GPS! It is hard to get lost with a device telling you exactly where you are and where you need to go.

Final Words: The purpose of my disconnected take on the matter was to bring out the two contrary positions. One, where I seem to oppose technology intervening with the simple bathing process. As Greenspan puts it rather well;

“But you already knew how to draw a bath, didn’t you? And you’ve somehow survived this far in life without the help of automated cells from the bathroom infrastructure…bathroom preference settings is probably not on the list of things you most want to do with your time(!)”

And the other, where technology seems to be a boon. Even though GPS might take away from us some sense of adventure, it does do a lot more. I’m sure most would agree that they’d rather have GPS than not. Better navigation, more accessibility and most of all, easier access to information, even on the move does seem like a step forward.

Technology is indeed changing our lives. How much we will allow it to change it, is still largely undecided.

retroactive royalties

Ok, on my commute to work this morning I tuned into NPR to listen in for a bit and caught "The Market Report" on "Morning Edition". There was a report regarding streaming radio on the internet and the royalties paid by web sites to record labels. The royalties have steadily increased over the years and have even been enacted retroactively in some cases. This doesn't really cut into the profits of AOL, Yahoo etc.---they're rich--- but small sites, small business if you will is effectively cut out of market due to these practices. Where have we seen this before? The telegraph, Film, Radio network, Television networks, it seems that all of these industries have "suffered" similiary. What I think we can expect from the royalties issue is a consolidation of the market share of streaming radio.

You will find it Everyware!!!

Thesis 34 touched on smart-ware which we'd all like to have today. I still like to think back at what it was like before we had certain technologies. People wanted their houses to be cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. We have achieved that with air conditioners, so what's next? Now I'd like the house to sense what room I'm in and set the temperature automatically to my preferences. The integration will be seamless, much like the a/c, but we haven't reached that level. Our grandparents and even parents were amazed by inventions like the refrigerator and air conditioners but now they are common place. I won't lease another apartment for the summer until I know the A/C works properly. We just haven't reached the age of smart-wares that the book is talking about. Thesis 35 touches the personal data issue that's been an ongoing problem. No one would track your body's data before because they couldn't. Now that they can, security and privacy issues arise again. Integration into society will help these devices survive. Before it was theoretically impossible to track someone's whereabouts, but with cell phones so common place right now, anyone's a potential target. (if that technology exists, which I'm sure it does) The only problem is that few people stop to think of new and fascinating technologies as a threat. The general population's wants and desires will determine the success or failure of this integration.

Television Transforms the News

Television transformed the news in a way that is hard to understand. Reading this article I realized that I hadn't even thought about how the news cast that I watch came to be. From "talking heads" to HDTV graphics it has been quite a journey.
With the rise of TV it seems odd to me that many of the things that seem common place to us now a days had not even been thought up yet. For example, on site reporting. They used to just use footage and then have the in-studio reporter talk over it. Another thing that seemed interesting is the way that the TV news had to decide which subjects to cover and how to cover them. They straddle the line between the tabloids and the more intense print based platform.
How famous must the newsmen have been back then? Imagine if there were only three channels, and content on TV had not been expanded like it has been today. The newsman would have been the most popular man in town.
The story about how President Johnson had three TV's to watch everything that was on the media. Our president today seems to take pride on the fact that he does not care about how the media perceives him whatsoever. President Johnson called the media when they made him look bad. I don't think that there is enough hours in the day for George W. Bush to do that.

When FYI becomes TMI

Information overload. How much is too much, and what's the point of making something we really don't need nor want to know what it tells us? Will we get a choice if it is engrained into everything we do? I don't want my shower to ready itself nor tell me when it's ready, it is a luxury that i neither need or want. But if what we think will come...comes, what choice will we have but to accept the whole and not the parts?

Some things just can't be. Costs of making cannot exceed necessity/want of people. I believe that it is now that we decide the parts, and that as time passes it will be increasingly difficult to decide what information you want to get about your surroundings. With new mind boggling inventions being brought to the public's attention monthly it is now that we decide if we want it or not.

Just like the telegraph, much of the technology that we have today could have been just a passing fad that fades away. Without a couple crucial elements and discoveries ous whole way of living could be dramatically changed. Some would say that if one person didn't figure it out another would have later, but would they have really? I guess you just never know. It's like wondering what it would be like if Germany won the war, an infinite of possibilities and ways it could have been.

News and Journalists

In Communication in History, it points out “the extent in which television news had come to fascinate, if not obsess, the nation.” I am not sure what type of news fascinated the people back in the early years of television but I am sure it was news about politics, wars, sports, and not so much of the “bull” we are fascinated with today. I hate to be inconsiderate but I don’t think Anna Nicole Smith is all that news worthy. I mean sure she was an extravagant TV personality that captured her audiences attention with her odd performances but there are far more worthy things that should be at the fore front of today’s news. I think there is way to much of this type of news flooding the TV.
The journalist first starting out discovering and presenting the news probably had no idea how much their work would impact society. Journalist now days are visiting dangerous countries to investigate atrocities to humanity, shed light on the progress of wars, and various other things. But above all journalists are risking their lives in order to bring this news to the public. And I believe there efforts are not in vain as we use the information they have provided and either make the proper changes ourselves or call upon legislature or other government officials to make the changes.

TV WARZ

The television industry has such a dominant and lucrative market present day; it’s hard to imagine it any other way. But when television first appeared, the first few years it struggled, having to compete with the all too popular radio. I thought it was interesting how many were skeptical of TV's possible profits, saying it would take about 10 years until TV would become commercially successful. This skepticism could be related to the internet now, and how many doubt how some sites (besides the big names of course) will earn money. As long as people want a technology, that technology can make money.

VHF vs. UHF - the ultimate battle of first generation television technology, sort of. Even though the “FCC [knew] that VHF television standards were inadequate” they still let it happen, because of pressures from NBC/RCA. This is the classic example of obviously flawed technologies creeping up on consumers, and the FCC not doing anything to stop them. When companies argue about standards for new technologies, with only their corporation in mind, they in-the-end are the victims. America does not want to decide when it’s right to invest in a technology, they simply want to buy it and hope it works forever. Blu Ray vs. HD-DVD seems to be in the same boat currently, both are only doing so-so in sales.

Language of the Medium

I agree with Carpenter's analysis of new media not making old media obsolete but rather creatively revitalizing it in new ways previously unimagined. It seems and understandably so skepticism comes with each new media. Skepticism seems to stem from the idea that new media "challenges" old media when I also feel that is never the case. With the advent of each new medium society is given greater tools to work with in conveying the language present within that medium used to provide the message. With the creation of new mediums old mediums are not trashed but incorporated allow for a variety of forms for a message to be taken place.

"A medium is not simply an envelope that carries any letter; it is itself a major part of the message" (Carpenter 257). With a view point from a diversity of mediums the message becomes more varied and in a sense less bias to one form. Carpenter studies the use of a variety of mediums to project one message, through a TV, print, and radio lecture. This lecture seems to have varied results each time it is used in the experiment. I think this just shows how many intricacies goes into utilization of a medium to display a single message. The message not just a product of the medium used but of the environment and culture.

Processors

When the class first started and we were reading about how people were all scared about new technologies I laughed. I mean I though to myself, How could someone be scared of something without a mind of its own. Now I am reading about all these processors being intertwined with everything I use in almost every day of my life. This is scary to think because in a sense these processors kinda have a mind of their own. It scares me to think of what they will soon be like and how easy it will be to incorporate into robotics. These processors are becoming much smaller and much faster and much more "smart". It is because of this that I am scared. People will be able to use these for anything and that scares me. In the next 100-1000 years could we be looking at an age of robotics and processors everywhere, well I hope that people soon become less selfish and more looking into the good of humanity, or we should all be very very afraid.

Bring on the Television

It was intriguing to read that when the television first began, there were so many technicalities. I can remember on one of my grandparents old televisions, that they might still have, there was a knob to switch between VHF or UHF and I never knew what that meant until I read about the start of television. But I guess not too much has changed because even today we still have the FCC regulating what can and can’t be viewed on television. However I think we all agree that with every year passing, a line gets pushed, then crossed, and then accepted. I mean I know that there are like billions of lines that have been pushed and crossed just with the cartoon show South Park.

Lots of things change with time of course, like how back in the 1940’s some commentators stated that the expected viewing periods are about an hour or two a day. And today there are millions of people that practically watch television all day long. Another thing was that when they first came out, the television was usually used only by the upper-class status public, but of course that changed within the first 10 years of the start of the televison. The prediction that was made that television were going to only be used by the upper class was made invalid a year later because the middle class public began to also purchase television sets, which brought on these remarks an editor in Business Week “TV is becoming the poor man’s theater” and “Television is the poor man’s latest and most prized luxury.” It’s a little funny how technology theories seem to repeat themselves, like the television and the computer: which were expected to be only used by the rich, but now almost everyone owns one, upper, middle and lower class people.

death of tv rabbit ears

I heard an interesting thing on my commute to work this morning, by 2009 the old TV antennas our parents grew up with will cease to work. TV manufacturers will stop making TVs that use this analog technology and start making TVs exclusively digital. Now this is no big deal to me, and probably no big deal most people in general, but it represents the end of an anolog tech in TVs. I thought this seemed worth mentioning in given the context of class.

Now, in the light of the essay about the beginnings of TV I think the above side note is even more pertinent. I found it interesting to note how the developmnet of the TV industry as we know it, was sevely affected by the involvement of the Federal government i.e. the FCC. The proscription of UHF in favor of VHF, which limited the amount of competition avaliable for the burgeoning industry essentially formed the TV world we know so well today. Things like the infamous "blue book" and censorship all sprung from the VHF restrictions.

I also found it interesting reading the recounts of early TV criticism. The fact that many thought TV would steal women at home away from their chores, and junior away from the baseball diamond, and dad away from his study doesn't seem far fetched today. I find myself immersed in crappy programs all the time, wondering why the hell I'm watching American Idol or Cops, when I should be studying for this class. Programs like Jerry Springer and The Biggest Loser also fall under the list of programs that these early TV critics prognosticated as being mind numbing and productivity killing.

Censorship of TV programs was an essetial factor in the rise of TV and I think this was a good thing. Why? Well if anyone has ever watched cable access any time after 12am we all know how inane and vapid the programming can be. Thank goodness for this little gem restricting our freedom of speech, or else we'd be subject not only to the jabbering of corporations hungry for our money but also the rants of anyone with enough cash to get a a licesnse.

Privacy Invasion

In Thesis 35 Greenfield touches on the aspect of invasion of privacy with networking. He talks about sites such as Friendster or Orkut. The first obvious thing I think about in comparison is Facebook, and the not so popular upgraded version a few months ago. I really didn't care. But the new facebook informed all of your friends essentially what you did, when you did it, and everything else in facebook. To the majority of students on facebook this was a huge invasion of privacy. I did find it odd or somewhat disturbing after a while. For example, now whenever my ex-girlfriend posts new pictures of her and her new boyfriend kissing or going to Mt. Bonnell...I am immediately informed and see the gory details.

Social networking sites aren't all that Greenfield touches on. I particularly like the part about information receiving a sort of "immortality" once it reaches the grid. Sometimes we need to forget things or not know about something, but now once it hits the network it will always be there. Greenfield says "One trouble with this is that we've historically built our notions of reputation such that they rely on exformation - on certain kinds of information leaving the world..." Although facebook administrators enabled privacy settings, a lot of people still aren't satisfied. And what of things were no privacy settings can be enabled? We're getting so fixated on acquiring more information in more ways and more rapidly that I think we sometimes reach the point when it's too much. But that's what technology is doing...bringing more information that will be immortalized.

How may I serve you… the news, that is…

News is offered in so many different ways nowadays – hardcopy (newspaper/magazine), electronic (internet), audibly (radio) and visually (television) – that the media does not give much room to not know what is going on in the world today. Of course, all sources, that are not opinion-based, are regulated to make sure that they are valid and not causing the world to break out in a riot. It is always interesting to see how much things have changed in the past and you sit and think, “Wow, knowing what I know now, could I really survive a time when there was no television or the internet?” I think I could.

Although television is probably the most appealing of all the mediums, I find it to be the most distracting. They touch briefly on actual news and then focus on other “news” to stir up chaos like “How milk is really not good for the body. Tune in and find out.” Maybe there isn’t enough news out there to be covered? I am not sure. With the newspaper and the internet, you have more control on what you want to find out about. You can skim through and browse sections to get the stories that you have more interest in and it is uninterrupted (unless someone stops to talk to you or your bus arrives). I can’t say that I don’t “watch” the news because I can usually YouTube or find a video clip online of the particular news story that I was reading about.

Whichever route you take to find out the latest news, we have so many options of being informed by what is going on in the world.

Television, the most powerful dictator ever

Edmund Carpenter’s article “The New Language” stimulated me the most in conjuring commentary. On page 257 he states that “We don’t watch TV; it watches us”. This reference made me think about TiVo and how suspicions were being raised about how TiVo monitors its clients. Apparently TiVo automatically adapts to users choices of shows and automatically records data, the data is then analyzed and then returns other shows that you might like that are similar. This stirred a huge privacy debate weather TiVo had the right to monitor recorded content. But it is this technology that Carpenter was foreshadowing; the TV will adjust to our viewing preferences and not the other way around.

In Williams Boddy’s selection “Television Begins” concentrated on the early entrepreneurships of the few successful television companies. The selection also centered around how the television impacted the family life. Women were out of the kitchens, children were inside instead of outdoors playing and fathers were leisurely relaxing all day without opening the briefcase. This scenario continues to show relevance today, as Americans are statistically eating more and exercising less. The media through television contains the power to change the American way of life. Much of what people do are dictated through media and has a direct influence on society. When McDonalds introduces a new product, millions of people will go try it, not knowing that it contains high levels of fat and cholesterol, the only image being portrayed is that, the food will bring happiness. Like Carpenter states in his article, the television is the most powerful media of the time.

I for one, was shocked when I read the statistic that close to 60% of the televisions sold when they were first introduced were purchased on credit. That may not seem so drastic in this day when credit lines and accounts are readily available to everyone over the age of 16, but in the '60s that represented an overwhelming majority. I was mostly taken aback for two reasons. First being that, I find it difficult to imagine the ready acceptance for a technology that was not entirely proven. Upon first release, it seems that televisions for the most part were big, expensive, had horrible picture quality and almost no network/channels to work with. Yet droves of people clamored to have one. Radio and Print media would still be the king of news and entertainment venues for several years to come, however a large number of people went beyond their average means of living just to purchase a television set. People that couldn't very well afford a set, did everything in their power to make sure they had one set up in their homes before too long. It's hard to believe that the average person buying a television at that point would have done it for sheer potential of what they believed the sets could accomplish. Rather, it seems more like the creation of television contained the perfect mix of future wonder and current practicality. As far as media was concerned, television had all the makings of radio but with the added incentive of picture broadcast.
The release of televisions to the general public also seems to be the last truly large scale release of a "must-have" product. As mentioned before, over 60% of the televisions bought were done through credit and loans. Ever since then, there hasn't been a technological release that has matched the enthusiasm that customers showed then. The next remotely similar launch would more than likely have been of the personal computer. While innovating the way information is broadcast and opening a door of potential applications to the user, computers were far too complicated to be inhaled by the masses directly after it's release. Eventually more savvy users would begin to purchase the machines, however in terms of technical revolution and ease of use, the television set remains King.

Then and Now

I think my favorite part of the reading was comparing television then to television now. I absolutely loved the quote about television content: "This means that vulgarity, profanity, the sacrilegious in every form, and immorality of every kind will have no place in television. All programs must be in good taste, unprejudiced, and impartial."
When I read this, I burst out laughing. I mean, I don't think any programs exist today that DON'T have any of those things. An example of this is the show "I Love Lucy" I thought it was mind-blowing that the show wasn't allowed to have Lucy and Ricky sleeping in the same bed, even though they are married. It really shows the change in morals, and what is considered acceptable in this day and age.
Back then, there was "simply no place for the florid gesture, the overprojection of emotion, the exaggeration of voice or grimace or movement..." I wonder how long it took them to change that idea. :) Now, there is high definition to capture every florid gesture in detail. In fact, that's what we love about television.
I thought it was interesting that there were only three major networks originally too. I wonder how many there are now. I would assume many more than that. And that makes me wonder what the future holds. If I am so amazed at how far television has progressed (or digressed, depending on how you look at it), I wonder how my great grandchildren will be entertained. Or with the way technology is progressing, maybe just my children. There might be something coming along better than tv very soon.

Random thoughts...

Well after completeing the hw .doc on the Fischer chaps I was having tons of thoughts and needed to write some down, dont read if you dont want but I need to get some postings in fa'sho.


The networked computer yields an unprecedented level of analysis of the social climate and the power of technology. For the first time, we actually have a ton of people giving first-hand accounts of there everyday lives; a critical development for the analysis of technology and society. So with the computer, we are able to quantify everything, and with the networked computer, we are able to quantify personalities, day-by-day lifestyles, and a plethora of other valuable information for sociologist, historians, and the populous alike. The problems of analysis then become extracting purposeful meaning from the mass quantities of information we are aggregating. Where do you look? How do you look? Why is the data collected? Who is collecting it? Is this a reliable source?

Now we must use the technology, in order to examine it and determine what people are doing with it; a profound cycle of people using technology, to see how other people are using technology. What does this mean for media studies? Will we have a bunch of new material to draw theory and practice from? Undoubtedly, but the real meaning I take from this, is that we have finally achieved a goal which we may or may not have consciously realized. That goal is the unity theory and practice. From the Renaissance, this distinction was made, and even back to Aristotle, theory and practice are separate. The two are complete opposites. Yet if we really think about it, has not all innovation come out of a unity of theory and practice? Inventors, Scientists, Alchemists, Engineers, all innovate side-by-side, and others come along, witnessing these discoveries occur side-by-side and cannot help but connect them to their own theories and practice. This in itself is a heuristic model, you have an idea, and in order for that idea to be valuable, it must be possible and must actually happen, and therefore you must practice through trial and error to learn something new, and certainly amend the original idea or theory in response to the practice. These things, although completely separate, are connected in the presence of human life. We have known this all along, but have been in opposition. Why? Maybe because so much good, along with so much bad has come from this resistance--WE’VE GOTTEN THIS FAR HAVENT WE?