Rebuilt Second Life

I read the last part of Rebuilt all at the same time, so I admit I can't exactly differentiate the second part of the reading from the first. So instead, I'm going to comment on parts that I thought taught me something or that stuck in my mind. In the book it talks about deaf people not being exactly "deaf". That the ear makes up sounds that aren't there that the person hears, maybe due to the absence of sound. This i never knew and am extremely interested in the fact that it does happen.

I mean if I had one line from a poem was repeating in my head over and over again for more than 30 minutes(like it did with the author of the book), I most likely would go crazy. Yet, I guess the body adjusts and most just learn to tune it out, like we do a clicking clock, only hearing it when we really pay attention or when it becomes all of a sudden quiet.

On Wednesday, we also tried logging on to Second Life and playing it. though it took forever to log on, and when it did there were major glitches in the system. It was good to see how social systems are constantly being upgraded, changed and made better, like everything that we deal with in life now. Even when there was a major glitch in the system and i couldn't modify my character's appearance, nor see my character, I was helped by another newbie who had the same problem. We talked to each other until i was unexpectedly logged off the system, and amazingly only took 3 minutes to log back on again. And just like technology today, sometimes you just need to restart the system to make it start working again, as we could see since this is Windows solution to almost all problems imaginable (otherwise known as The Blue Screen of Doom/Death).

Second Life

Rebuilt

What a lovely book. I liked it just as much the second time around as I did the first. He takes a subject that not many people understand unless they are directly involved with the implant, and makes it easy to understand and so personal- he writes as he would speak, directly to the reader from his heart. I felt like I could really relate to his struggles, and his problems in life. I also enjoyed hearing about the behind the scenes part of the implant industry. It is the part that never gets mentioned. Nobody ever hears about the testing, and the people that built the implants by hand, and the people who wrote the software. Nobody knows about the trial and error in reproducing sound, in looking for newer and better ways to do the same thing. Nobody knows about the mistakes, like the processors that leaked, or the processor that didn’t work right, or the positioner, which gave some users meningitis. All these things fade into the background of the novelty of the invention itself: a device implanted into the brain that functionally reproduces the ability to hear for people that cannot. I just think that even with all of its problems, it is so amazing how far this technology has come, and how far it will eventually go.

Brain Interpretation

I find it amazing in how far technology has moved along, and how quickly. From the reading of the past, in the class, we started off with ones and zeros and the telegraph. Now it just blows my mind trying to comprehend how these doctors and medical technological technicians have made devices to interpret hearing with the brain. I mean it takes very very serious knowledge to be able to create a device to give a deaf man his hearing back. I cant begin to understand the complications it would take to create such a device. I mean this is a really life changing invention. Sure the interenet and everything else has made life easier but, when you think about how a deaf person becomes totally depressed and feels so lonely with no hearing, it really brings this invention a level up on others. Its not only helping make life easier, but also tolerable and its bringing happiness into many peoples lives who thought it was impossible to get hearing back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/860000/images/_864815_cochlear_implant_inf300.gif

It blows my mind that this is acctually a real thing. Now a days we also have the lasik eye surgery to where they make someone who has bad eyes sight, much renewed. My parents and grand parents have had it.

http://www.eyeclinicpc.com/lasik/lasik%20steps1.jpg

Now someone with bad eye sight and bad hearing can be renewed. This is such an amazing feat in the medical technological field. What will they come up with next? What kind of medical technologies do you think will be here in the near future? Do you think that the prices for these operations will get cheaper?

From the book rebuilt, all in all, I learned that we need to be appreciative for our blessings and just everyday things we take for granted. We should love every day and realize we are lucky because we can hear, see, think, and learn so easily in such a great enviroment!

Simply Complex

Ubiquitous systems must not introduce new complications into ordinary operations like the exaggerated door fee example. If ubiquitous systems help save time they should be used. Otherwise, I would agree that there is no need to place them in a situation that would take less time and energy without it. I also understand the need for the system to be at the choice of the user and not at the choice of the system. The system is in place to help us in our daily lives not the other way around so it should be greater than or equal to the efficiency of present tasks. We should not have to spend needless time using the system if it is not doing us a service. I recently read the "the laws of simplicity" by John Maeda and it discusses as greenfield has, the complexity of and within simplicity. Maeda discusses how devices such as the IPOD have succeeded in appeal because they follow the law of complexity within simplicity. Meaning, the device is simply a wheel that can function through a complex system of tasks to acheive the system goal. The look is simple the technology is innovative and simply, complex. This can definitely relate to the ubiquitous system. The system must be extremely efficient and user friendly in its simplicity, but in order to achieve this there will need to be an extensive organization of complex networked architecture for the system to function as it has been imagined, to serve the people.

Being able to turn Everyware off is a very real challenge that is going to be hard to figure out. At one point the ubiquitous systems will be so integrated, that human error could cause grave trouble. The most real example that I can cite of this is automated highways, similar to Minority report. The cars are communicating with each other, not the drivers, so what a driver may choose to do while controlling his car may be very different for what the other cars around him thought was going to happen. This is just one example of how turning off the ubiquitous system could cause grave danger to everyone else that is continuing to use it. Another more recent/funny example is the new Visa commercials where everyone is paying with a check card, and the cafe is operating at near Dr. Seuss level. Next, one person comes up with cash and throws the entire thing out of whack. While this is not an example of ubiquitous systems having too much information...ect, it is an example of the stresses that people will put on efficency the more ingrained this quick technology becomes. It is like at the grocery store when someone writes a check. No one talks bad to the person, but everyone wishes they would get with the times.

High Complexity in the Service of Simplicity

I love the idea of all things controllable by one interface. But Greenfield's description of the High Complexity in the Service of Simplicity touches on a topic that I've thought of many time in the advent of technology. We obviously want technology to make our lives easier. I'd love to sift off mundane tasks to my R2 unit and focus on pressing matters. But the automated devices that make life simple are complex themselves.

Take my R2 unit for example (no i don't really have one though it'd be freaking awesome). Artificial Intelligence is built upon automations of automations. Programming of the most complexity. Time and research has been spent on this field for ages with significant, yet limited, results. But the capabilities of these robots are amazing. Just passing by the Robotics Lab in Taylor Hall, we can see little puppies playing soccer. Not cloning or scientific experiments, just soccer. The students at this university have achieved a great feat though. If these puppies can play soccer, then tackling dirt and trash in the house will definitely be an option in the near future. Yet these programmers have coded their butts off just to reach that milestone. High complexity that no one could understand, few have and put it inside mechanical dogs. It's purpose...to play soccer, next: sweep and mop floors. Technology will do everything for us to make our lives simpler, but we must simply make technology able to do everything.

the on/off switch

"Thesis 76: Everyware must be conservative of time. Thesis 77: Everyware must be deniable".

I've flip-flopped back and forth all semester long, one day condemning everyware, the next praising it. Finally I realize my capricious fence jumping was symptomatic of my need to be able to turn everyware off. For me control must ultimately lie in my hands, and as innovative and slick evryware seems it can one day be I was still uncomfortable with the loss of human control. I never thought about being able to turn it off. I always saw the possibilities of everyware as a double edged and therefore a little scary--- HAL 9000 scary, 1984 scary. Now that I realize the painfully simple solution of the on/off switch, well hell I'm not so apprehensive. The day my front door threatens to sue me is the day I get evicted from my apartment so being able to turn aspects of everyware off is definitely reassuring. Now that I'm writing this I'm beginning to think that one of the most important things which will have to be available in everywarfe is the off button. As the systems we create continue to expand in influence and complexity we lose a bit of our individuality. By individuality I mean our ability to shape our surrounding through purposive action. Everyware streamlines our lives but we lose the choice of purposive action. The loss might be nominal, even trivial its still a loss of control. So three cheers for the off button, it rocks and thank goodness for it! Everyware, in all its efficient glory must remain dependpent on us, not the other way around. Systems fail, stuff breaks and people make mistakes and in my experience, turning stuff off is a good way to fix it (sometimes hitting it with a shoe works...sometimes). So as we near the end of the semester I can say I've learned a lot about IT&S, I bore my buds at happy hour recounting the telegraph etc, but I'm rally glad to learn about he off button. I'm a simple guy, technologically provincial, I get by ok but also get lost a lot. So once again the whole off button thing, hell yeah it rocks.

More surprises?!?

I can truthfully say, that I never even considered that this was possible. When volunteering at The Arch, I was trying to explain it to one of the men that are helped there, and couldn’t even form the correct words to explain what this man is going through. He wrote a whole book about it, and yet I can’t sum up what it was and how it works? That’s when I fully realized how deeply engrained my disbelief was, how fast I processed the information and how quickly it drained out the other ear while I was reading it. It’s as if we are brought up to expect that anything is possible, yet we are psychologically inclined to avoid what seems new, foreign and life changing.
When reading Rebuilt I automatically realized the potential that it had for “listening” to music. Imagine where we are all wirelessly connected to our music and phone players, through our head. I know in the book his had a wire, but I think he talked about an easier one to wear while he tumbled under the covers. I’m not sure if this had a wire or not, but with all the Bluetooth and wireless technology around, I’m sure its not too far in the future if it is not already here. But just imagine that. Wouldn’t it be awesome? I’ve mentioned in class before about the soundless sound system that uses high and low pitches to create music and sound that can be heard by one or many people. Yet that doesn’t come close to what this could do for the music industry. The way he talks about how he hears the music sounds like its not too distorted from normal…but then again, it may just be the quality that turns people away.
Another question that entered my mind while reading. Would it be possible to someone connect these as a communication device? Earlier on I talked about a phone, yet now I’m meaning more, is someone able to someone get into that system and make him hear what they want to? It’s a scary thought, and I hope that it wouldn’t be possible. I mean, if its just a hard drive in which you could encode programs, whose to say you can’t write a program for receiving someone else’s signal. Either way, I love the guy’s humor, reading in public is hard to do with this book only because my random snorts of laughter are pretty embarrassing in a quiet setting.

Digital Ears

Whenever I get a new cell phone, Ipod, or any piece of technology, it takes a bit to learn to navigate the menu systems and fine tune all the settings. Now imagine if this technology was instead one’s self AND it was sending messages to ones brain to stimulate sound waves. This would be the motherload of technology curves.

Micheal must have been so confused learning to cope with his new found hearing. From calibrating the maximum settings to manually adjusting volume on his wrist, I am sure it was a strange experience. If you forget to change your ring tone volume on your cell its really no big deal, you can call people back, but if you forget to turn on your hearing… well you are def.

“The toilet flushing: an explosion” (54)

Not only do you have to go through the hard ache of adjusting volumes, it seems like your brain has to become familiar with this electronic hearing. I guess in a lot of ways it makes sense, the technology is not 100% the same as hearing, I am sure that is an incredible feat. So Micheal also has to fine tune his own mind to the new workings of his digital ears.

Cochlear Implant

I can understand the anxiety and frustration Michael felt adapting to his cochlear implant. The whole reality of a tiny microchip replacing my hearing with its own interpretations of audio signals through 1s and 0s can be a bit unsettling. Not only that but a microchip designed by programmers who have their own ideas of what hearing is to sound like can lead to doubts. None the less I would have gone through with the implant just as he did. To live in a world without being able to hear would be unimaginable. Not to be able to talk to your family and friends, you would really be living in a world not many other live in or understand. Then there is the whole process of getting accustomed to your new implant which reminds me of an assignment I did in another class where we had to navigate a computer only using the keyboard. I know this is not even near the same level as trying to reclaim your hearing but it sure frustrated the heck out of me and I couldn’t imagine how Michael who has no other choice might have felt. To add to any more problems, there is that optional upgrade which is so tempting because of that longing to hear as normal as possible, which if one does decide to upgrade leads to the whole process of getting accustomed to the new sounds once again right when your comfortable where your at.

SAS v. CIS

While comparing the two different settings of the cochlear implant, the Author is trying to decide between SAS and CIS hearing. He likens it to handing someone a guitar, and two theory books, and telling them to decide which theory to follow to learn how to play. This is a pretty shocking decision for me. As he said, it would be much better if they just gave you one and let you decide which to use. You could then adapt to the "best" possible software and be on your right track to hearing. The way he describes the sounds the two aids make is quite interesting, and from his description I have a hard time deciding which sounds more enjoyable. Listening to how they work, the SAS seems like it would be more realistic, as it is an analog signal where the entire cochlea is stimulated, as opposed to the CIS which is digital. The SAS seems like it would offer more in terms of sound, but then your body would have to interpret it.

The fact that our Author is a computer programmer makes this book way more interesting as well. He looks at it from the prospective of a computer programmer, and that makes the book come alive. Without his critical thinking do you think the book would have happened? I do not think he would have seen all of the angles of the surgery for himself if his career path had been different.

Do no harm

See I just see a problem with this concept. All these people making all the new technologies will be thinking money. All they think and everyone thinks in the world is money. If companies had a new product that might cause a little bit of harm to the people but make them loads and loads of money, guess what, we are all going to get a little harm. When people invent new things I dont think they really do much to cause harm. I see it as the consumers misuse the products alot of the time and in essence can really cause some harm. I think back and remember about a scientist who created some kind of bomb and it ended up causing a whole lot of trouble. The telegraph was not made to harm but as we can see people still did things on it that were not right to other people. Im sure there was lots of illegal exchanges going on. In all this I wouldnt really say its the inventors fault, its more of the consumer misuse. Lets just hope these greedy companies dont put something out on accident that can easily be abused to cause harm the average man.

Digitalized and Dehumanized.

I find the whole idea of having a processor inside of me and being able to plug in media devices such as cell phones and cd players as pretty amazing, and a part of the inevitable future. What are they trying to do with every new computer system? Make it smarter, make it faster, have more memory...basically make it human without human errors.

It kinda made me think of "The Terminator 2: Judgment Day". In this one ol' Arny comes back as the good guy...and is basically the perfect human. There is a point in the movie where...Sarah Connor...don't know her real name, points it out. The terminator would never get mad and hit him, never get drunk and hit her, never sleep all day and want to watch football all night...a machine will do what it is told and programmed to do without human error.

So I am not surprised that the angle of incorporating machine like benefits into a human is being looked at. It's just a matter of how far. Will it go so far that instead of our cars communicating with each other, we are telling the car behind us we are gonna change lanes via a blue-tooth chip in our head and the other drivers head? Will we one day not even have to go anywhere to have our life? Like the man who lived through the lamdamoo...will the world one day become a digital life? Instead of going to work, I'll just communicate through my computer and do the work there. It all sounds pretty far fetched to me, but in 1000 years, where will life be? If there are people living there life through digital worlds now...what about then.

Not quite there yet...maybe never?

Throughout the book Everyware we've been introduced to many interesting theses regarding the possibility of its further integratrion into our daily life experiences. Thus far, I'm confident enough to speculate we know this generally: high technology will continue to matter, but how much ,is yet, if ever to be determined.

Thesis 70 proposed that to"act in good faith, it's simply not specific enough to constitute practically useful guidance" (p. 227). Generally, relying on individuals to act in good faith is not a particulary effective or effiecient. Simple enough to understand but societies are diverese and it will be difficult to syncronize a general inter-societal guidance program (not mention intra-societal programs) and there will be a definite need to legislate some form of control. Given the nature of legislation this will require an increase in bureaucracy to implement the guiding legislation. I think such a guidance program would be inherently better than relying on individuals to act in good faith but would still be naturally prone to ineffiency and stagnation. So what possible solution can we propose to better protect any individual affected by everyware? Is there an absolute definitive best answer, no probably not.

Thesis 71 and the "smart" problem. I'm fairly confident we'll be hard pressed to develop tehcnology that does "smart" well. The human ability to react to interactions with other human beings is a very organic thing. Its a very human thing to react, and tools don't do "human" well. I don't think its possible for tools, and therefore everyware to do "human". I see Pinochio never becoming a real boy, but being a wodden puppet with no strings is still pretty cool.

Automated? No thanks.

I agree with Greenfield’s statement that we have yet to create anything that is “smart.” We have been able to simulate this smartness based on data collected to guess what we may be interested in. But how accurate is this method? I do not ever recall ordering something from Amazon, and looked at the “You might be interested in these products…” section and actually bought what they suggested. Although, I would have to say that it was a good attempt in trying to figure me out.

It is true that the devices, such as the iPod, are not “smart” in updating its own firmware, but after working for so many years with the computer, I am not so sure I would even want my iPod or even any other device I may own to do that. I can’t be sure that the upgrade would be able to work as well as what I currently have setup. It’s a nightmare to try to remove an upgrade from something in hopes to restore it back to a good, stable working state.

I still believe that computers are here to enhance our lives, not take over it. You need to make sure that there is human interaction in between otherwise, it could be totally unpredictable. Who knows what may be being automatically installed into your machine or device until it is too late.

Half Human or Half Cyborg?

Reading about Chorost's life of a cyborg intrigued me so much i had to do further research on Cochlear implants and other bionic advancements. I remember along time ago implants were becoming available for the blind to see in grainy black and white images by implanting devices in their heads hooks up to a chip. This was similar to Chorost's auditory replacement. Stevie Wonder was considering getting this surgery done however backed out last second after he thought about how having vision would dramatically alter his life maybe even negatively. There is actually a large debate among the deaf community about weather this technology should be available because of the unique gifts that the deaf posses will be lost as they progress into becoming more “normal”. This was one of the reasons Stevie did not go through with the procedure.

What I was impressed by the most in Chorost’s story was his ability to plug in devices to his processor and listen to audio files and other audio streams. Sound is sensed by our own ears as just fluctuations of waves in frequencies we can pick up. The cochlear implant works in the same way by picking up these distinct waves and sending them to the brain to translate. The significance of how we are embedding technology in our selves is to show the progression of how we are turning complex human processing into digital form. Eventually someday it would be interesting to see processors capable of competing with the human brain in developing adapting patterns to emotions and behaviors.

I read Rebuilt before the semester started, but I am reading it again to keep the events fresh in mind, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it as much this time as I did the first time I read it. It is so interesting to learn Mike's thoughts and feelings as he goes through this process, and about the process itself. I really liked reading about how he hears the sound in his head. It sounds so strange to me. I also liked how all the gadgetry worked, such as plugging the cd player into his processor so that it goes directly into his head. He says "I'm hearing music that never actually exists as sound". I think that's absolutely awesome!! What if we could develop something like that for hearing people, so that no one could bother others with their loud music again? No one would ever know what you were listening to. I wonder whether or not he could still hear things around him. It would be really neat if he could have music playing in his head and still hear the people around him.
Another example of the gadgets was the cell phone he plugged directly into his processor. It would be like hearing people talking in your head. I bet that would feel really strange the first time. I also had no idea that there were cell phones designed to work with those implants. I think its really cool and obviously very useful for the people that have the implant.

Cyber Rape & Stolen Identity

The Mr. Bingle incident seems similar to getting your identity stolen, which he did in terms of the MOO. Stolen identity and Mr.Bingle both are a pain to deal with, because they claim to be you and they have enough documentation to prove it (which in most cases is not a lot). They reap the benefits of being you by taking out credit cards and buying things, like Mr.Bingle using people to launch attacks on each other. Then finally, once you have been ravaged you have the task of putting the pieces back together, and convincing others that it was not really you at all who committed the acts.

Like in our world, I am sure it’s hard to tell and deal with identity in a MOO. So much time and emotion is invested the fact that someone could easily destroy it is a scary idea. Perhaps all social system struggles with identity issues, and how one should properly identify themselves using cards and logins. Because it seems like the story of “Cyber Rape” shares many similar ideas as real life identity theft.

I raped World of Warcraft

Jumping into the world MUD, it was a unique experience when I was in the LambdaMoo house. When playing in this virtual reality, I began to think how liable we are for our actions inside this world. Just because we are behind a computer screen does that really make it ok to be someone you are not? The virtual world reminded me of the game called the SIMS where you can create people and towns. You are in total control of everything that’s happening including traffic flow, natural disasters, and even love making. The game allows you to play God and be in charge of every occurrence. In Julian Dibbell’s article we examine cyberspace rape and analyze how responsible someone should be in cyberspace. This reminded me of how I usually pretend to be someone else when I am online. I usually pretend I am some gangster type person and try to have a lot of fun. When communicating in the virtual world like this, no one should take words seriously. Unless the content comes from accredited agencies such as cnn.com, a lot of things on the internet are actually just scams and erroneous information. The only way we can merger reality with the virtual world is through trust and honesty.

Cyber Rape

The Dibbell article posed some interesting questions. The main one being "where does the line between virtual and actual reality blur?" The victim could have very well been so offended that it was considered rape...or the victim could have just ignored the harassing statements and blocked them. But in the MOO world where text is held accounted for with so much regard, it was impossible to squash the attacks for what they were. Instead the victim's good name was sullied by the attacker and misrepresentation of the name with the voodoo doll was seen as an unforgivable act. The feelings must be based on a certain violation level by that account. We want a good name and rapport in real life as well as any virtual life we may partake in. If insert pain, hurt feelings and ill-intentions towards any of our other identities, then we feel violated.

Then, I start to wonder what programming measures are taken to prevent such incidents. Eliminating all bad things in a simulated environment isn't impossible but takes a lot of coding. But doesn't simulating an environment force you to mimic everything...even bad things. So the real question is posed on which direction the developers will take in creating these constructs. In a virtual world where crimes like rape are A) Possible or B) Not Possible make for two completely different experiences.