Entries in the Category "ipodworld"
Nothing left to invent?
On a final note for this semester, I thought I'd share a small, yet very significant, concept that I've learned from this SAGES class. Before this class began, I thought we'd be talking about how specific inventions such as the iPOD affect our worlds- socially, politically, biologically, etc. We did learn this, but we also learned how to world acts on iPODs to bring its natural order about- the world imposes its networking habits on technology around us, or technology around us imposes its networking habits on the well-equipped world. This natural structure of the world makes it possible to go beyond what we've seen- to network invisibly, into our daily lives. If our lives are suited for networks, then we should be able to add computing into our lives discreetly.
So this all comes down to that one thing I've learned- that there is more to invent. I honestly, truly believed that there really was nothing left to invent. We can communicate from around the world. We can answer questions about every aspect of the universe. We can enjoy any of our interests through convenient means or through satellite, on demand viewing of or listening to these interests. But we notice all these things because they haven't truly disappeared into the landscape of our lives. The next task we have is to create technology that is ubiquitous- and we certainly have a lot more to invent!
We've come full circle... to presence!
So we've been reading about text messaging and mobile phones and how lots of text-message crazy teens have no problem thinking that the people they're messaging miles away are, well, THERE. Texting has become so ubiquitous that the people they're reaching almost become ubiquitous. Here, therefore, is my sentimental regret of this transition that might be coming our way soon...
A couple summers ago I ran a tiny little independent coffee kiosk in the ER of a hospital. I doubt I'll ever get such a beneficial job, but nonetheless, I was all alone and constantly bored. Frequently, one of my best friends from home would text me by his instant messenger... from China (I was in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.). The most frequent topic of conversation was "i'm bored". I enjoyed the sentiment that went with overseas texting and the kind greetings of a friend while he knew I was bored on the job, and I laughed like he was there, but he most certainly wasn't...
When he returned later that summer, he would frequently call and we'd chit chat on the phone as my cappuchinos frothed over my then-raw-with-burns hands. One day, however, his voice began to echo. Confused with my phone and by a background flash of light, I turned around to see him and my other friends surprising me with a lovely digicam photo of the experience.
For some reason, this all stuck with me. I communicated with... let's call him "Phop"... through text messaging, instant messaging, cell phones, digital photos, and face-to-face communication. And I've gotta say, although nothing beats face-to-face anyday, after all those ways of communicating, I truly appreciated it even more. (The best part? I was on the night shift- 3 am?!?!)
Nurture Networks?
So the lack of recent comments might be due to my ceaseless rambling about the books we've been reading in iPOD world. I think, therefore, I will dwell a bit today on a relevant but less book-intensive topic: the ability of technology to "nurture". Our recent readings in Barabasi's book have been all about how networking and technology affects our "nature" - our genetic predispositions and survival. Why do we see a lack of technology created to nurture us into better patterns of functioning? Sure, cell phones, internet, etc help us to survive fittest in today's society, but what happens when we have all these things, but fail to be raised in nurturing and supportive environments?
I was looking at old ads in 60's newspapers for a project- ads for products that self-cleaned and cooked so that women could spend more time with the family. Although times have changed, does the technology we use today ad to warm, nurturing interactions, or subtract?
I'm recalling my mom yelling... "DINNNNERRR!!!!!!" for the 30th time as I searched away for useless information and profiles of people I barely knew.
Psychology shows us that there certainly is nothing like the warmth of family, as in one study, babies' health was proportionate to being held by a mother. But for children without these resources, we should try to think of ways that technology can give them the support they need. We can certainly create nurturing networks with attachment figures as our hubs!
Cell Division!
Last night I was joking around with my 6'0, 200+ lb boyfriend and asking him how the heck he grew so big from just a tiny fetus. Much to my amusement, he actually answered my rhetorical question: "Cell Division!" As not-so-biology majors, this cracked us both up. His laughingly true comment resonates in a very odd way with Barabasi's discussion on nodes of the internet- as he explains how even latecoming nodes can become hubs by increasing their fitness, all I can think of is evolution and survival of the fittest. So what does it have to do with cell division? Can we make a connection (a "link" if you will) between the expansion of a node- division into many, many links- and the division of our cells? This is just a preliminary thought, and although I don't know much about biology, I'd definitely like to know more about these connections. Barabasi speaks of a biologist's exploration of the robustness of an organism- it's ability to survive in harsh conditions. I suppose the next time I note my boyfriend's height and weight, I'll just call him "robust".
Science. Technology. ...Faith?
Allow me to use this venue to cordially invite you all to a presentation Thursday at 7 pm (tonight) on Science, Technology, and Faith in the Spartan Room of Thwing.
A campus minister, former Chemical Engineer, is writing a book on the topic and will be presenting his views of the interaction of these three seemingly separate worlds.
Free refreshments will be provided.
This event is sponsored by Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.
Thank you!
At Last! Technology in the Context of Early History and Psychology!
When I first encountered Linked by Barabasi, I was extremely excited that what Professor Yoo had called a difficult read was engaging and thought-provoking! Then I realized that I had just read 3 chapters of the wrong book. Needless to say, as a history/psych major, I was anxious to get into some reading that had both early history and psychological phenomenon connected with technology.
I first found Barabasi's connection of early Christianity and nodes to be quite interesting, and I was impressed that he brought up the possibility that efficiency of networking is not only to do with the messenger and connections, but with the message itself. With MafiaBoy's simple infiltration of major sites, we might often assume that any message might easily be networked. But when it comes to the basics human interaction, there must be some substance to the messages we are relating.
I was also quite excited to see Milgram's experiment evaluated! Although his study did not detail these things, however, I'd like to know why there are often 6 degrees of separation, and what variables created a closer or further connection between people. After Castells' book, I must ask how demographics play into these connections. Are there different effects on more rural areas? Milgram chose "middle of nowhere" areas-- does this mean that city folk have closer connections (due to citizens knowing more people in general), or further (so many people in a concentrated area might make some hard to find)? How do personal traits play into these connections? Those who did not return these cards might be better at networking like Paul (they're so interconnected that they haven't time for these tasks) or worse (they lose track of their connections)? I would predict that personality type (extrovert vs. introvert) and gender (perhaps females are more apt to recall or value connections) affect distance between connections.
Entertainment and Communalism
I've got just a few thoughts on today's readings, the first one being that I'm impressed by certain conclusions made by Castells. The pattern (at least in the US) of using TV and video as entertainment, radio as a companion, and internet as a means to explore interest is fascinating in that it negates the assumption that everyone wants "all-in-one" devices for everything. Even certain video game consoles that dual as DVD players still move toward keeping entertainment in one device. I would, however, suggest that Castells should create a working definition of "entertainment" vs. "interest". Personally, I would call certain things (..porn...) that were mysteriously omitted from figure 7.1 ("Percentage of households in North America that perform on-line activities weekly by activity") entertainment and not just an "interest".
One other thought was regarding Castell's focus of the internet in metropolitan areas. This is where most sites are owned, most internet access is allocated, and where internet use began. The internet is just another way cities can organize their information economy-- however, I would go to a more individual level to say that those who live in cities move towards some forms of community and communalism. Perhaps metropolitan residents just desire more to share thoughts, interests, and ideas in a format as communal as the internet, in keeping with their lifestyles.
Amsterdam Digital City -- What would it mean here, today?
I want to dedicate today's post to the wonders of DDS-- the Amsterdam Digital City. I was amazed to learn about it, but even more amazed that I hadn't learned about it. Perhaps this is a matter of my age, but after asking clueless others, I wonder why there hasn't been more publicity of this phenomenon. My first thought ran along the lines of Castells' remark that the city of Amsterdam allowed its internal networks to be linked to the internet, helping to provide a controlled transparency. Such transparency is desired by all in civil society, as we see in the news today. We see Republicans and Democrats alike demanding documents about past activities of the new nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. The call is not entirely for a justice who will side with certain opinions, nor just a credible nomination, but for our right to some transparency from authority figures.
I was also curious about DDS and its organization as a nonprofit; while the structure was top-down, the ability to express opinions helped DDS to feel democratic. A smaller, non-internet based nonprofit with similar purposes of organization and information might not be expected to be "democratic"; even with volunteers, there are always leaders who determine how members are organized and informed.
A final note: is there room for non-commercial social interaction and internet culture? This notion seems to bring to light the capitalist vs. communist nature of even internet cities. Despite some struggles inherent to communism, I would hesitate to accept a fully commercial ("capitalist") internet civic society. Originally reading about DDS gave me hope for equality in the ability to organize and inform through the internet, regardless of economic status.
My Dad is a N00b
I'm very impressed by network enterprise models for businesses like fashion. Companies like Zara that are able to design, produce, and distribute products based on market responses in two-week periods should be applauded and taken as examples for other businesses. I would be curious to know how the market responds to the inventory. How do buyers provide feedback about products? Companies like eBay provide ways for buyers to give feedback to sellers; although this might not affect inventory in the same way as Zara, they might provide a model for ways that buyers can respond and which buyers actually provide feedback.
I'd also like to add to Castells' argument in The Internet Galaxy regarding the technology of transactions and participation in online stock tracking and trading. Transactions provide for more opportunities to invest online, but not just in other online transactions-- they encourage online exploration and investment in technology. Perhaps I only have one example, but it's firsthand. My father has vowed that he wants to die without ever learning how to use the internet or a computer. He's avoiding the time and energy it takes for an older generation to learn. But when it came to the dotcom boom a few years ago, he was all about learning how to use the internet. As a result, he broke from many of his "backwards" ways to invest in technology for the family. He still doesn't use the internet regularly, but online trading helped him to explore a world he would have otherwise ignored.
Value... Convenience... What does it all mean, anyway?
I'm interested in McCollough's view of value and of his belief that value in itself is nothing unless it is made into something by someone. First and foremost, this made me think of a popular example of our changing schemas and definitions of value based on today's technology. The example is the value given to items acquired in computer games such as EverQuest. One of my good friends was a die-hard everquest fan, so I heard a lot about its details. most importantly, people were selling swords and other pieces of equipment acquired by getting to new levels on everquest, and selling these items on Ebay. Although this practice has stopped, I found it extremely curious and hard to understand. I couldn't fit into my schema of value the "pricing" of such an item. As technology expands our definition of value, we will probably see more instances like this.
Secondly, it made me think of a problem I encountered on my research paper about IM/SMS technology. I encountered, in advertising and user experience claims of products, the word "convenient". Looking it up on several different dictionaries, it meant everything from comfortable to desirable to necessary to efficient to easy... and it occurred to me that convenience is, as value, in the eye of the beholder. The definition of convenience is dependent on the needs and desires of the users, just as value is assessed by users. These words carry a breadth of information in a time where details surely matter... We will constantly need to reupdate our schemas surrounding these words. Are you ready to do so?
I Declare My Presence.. And so much more?
I'm struck by the dichotomy of the "declaration of location" described in chapter 5 of "Digital Ground". The chapter discusses growing occasions in which we are required to declare our presence in literal and digital locations. The first catch lies in the fact that it can never be assumed that we're declaring merely our presence. While by swiping a card to get into a building or entering a username into an e-vendor's site, we only indicate our own presence, we are very often including others under our "name". How many times have you let someone piggyback into your building, intentionally or unintentionally? How many times have you forgotten to sign out, causing someone to perform all sorts of activities (oftentimes illegal) under your name? When I first received my laptop as a Christmas gift, it became a download free-for-all. It had so much space on it that, under my name and IP address, all sorts of files were illegally downloaded by other (e-glares at a certain person). But while we often fail to indicate the presence of another at these locations, there's another catch: our presence indicator declares much more than just who we are. A ZIP code tells a multitude of things, while a username and password on any given site might know your mother's maiden name or that of Fluffy, your first pet. Our goal in declaring our presence is, oftentimes, security. Are we (in the true meaning- us and our piggybackers), as well as those asking for our information, truly protecting our own security? Why do we need to declare our presence when we're really declaring so much more?
On a separate note, I was both excited and melancholy upon reading about the idea of motion detectors alerting help when elderly persons are not sensed in their homes. My great aunt, who lived alone, suffered an aneurysm on a night when her family was out of town. Collapsed on the floor for multiple days, it did great damage to her, and today her right side is completely paralyzed. While I understand the desire for humanitarian needs and personal responsibility, isn't humanitarianism also focused on helping those who can't help themselves? After all, a "walk" signal is not necessary for everyone- we can just look for red lights of opposite-moving traffic. But what's wrong with subtly informing those who need the signal that it's safe to go? I think these precautions are helpful if not necessary, and I know my great aunt would have appreciated a precaution.
I Declare My Presence.. And so much more?
I'm struck by the dichotomy of the "declaration of location" described in chapter 5 of "Digital Ground". The chapter discusses growing occasions in which we are required to declare our presence in literal and digital locations. The first catch lies in the fact that it can never be assumed that we're declaring merely our presence. While by swiping a card to get into a building or entering a username into an e-vendor's site, we only indicate our own presence, we are very often including others under our "name". How many times have you let someone piggyback into your building, intentionally or unintentionally? How many times have you forgotten to sign out, causing someone to perform all sorts of activities (oftentimes illegal) under your name? When I first received my laptop as a Christmas gift, it became a download free-for-all. It had so much space on it that, under my name and IP address, all sorts of files were illegally downloaded by other (e-glares at a certain person). But while we often fail to indicate the presence of another at these locations, there's another catch: our presence indicator declares much more than just who we are. A ZIP code tells a multitude of things, while a username and password on any given site might know your mother's maiden name or that of Fluffy, your first pet. Our goal in declaring our presence is, oftentimes, security. Are we (in the true meaning- us and our piggybackers), as well as those asking for our information, truly protecting our own security? Why do we need to declare our presence when we're really declaring so much more?
On a separate note, I was both excited and melancholy upon reading about the idea of motion detectors alerting help when elderly persons are not sensed in their homes. My great aunt, who lived alone, suffered an aneurysm on a night when her family was out of town. Collapsed on the floor for multiple days, it did great damage to her, and today her right side is completely paralyzed. While I understand the desire for humanitarian needs and personal responsibility, isn't humanitarianism also focused on helping those who can't help themselves? After all, a "walk" signal is not necessary for everyone- we can just look for red lights of opposite-moving traffic. But what's wrong with subtly informing those who need the signal that it's safe to go? I think these precautions are helpful if not necessary, and I know my great aunt would have appreciated a precaution.
I Need My Personal Space
I've got to be honest, folks- Digital Ground is "stretching" my cognitive horizons. In other words, I'm confused thus far. There are, however, some interesting points that I'll take the liberty of expanding upon. Namely, these poitns are the metaphor of the internet as a series of locations to which we can travel, and environmental perception as part of the American dream.
Many of us recall early versions of internet browsers asking us where we wanted to go on that particular day. From a psychological standpoint, why have we so often used this transportation-location metaphor? Are there necessities that the internet has provided for us in America, compensating for our lack of vacation or siesta time? Are we so busy that our vacation time must be taken from our own home by surfing the internet? Perhaps we use this vocabulary because of the expanse of intangible space occupied by the internet. As environmental limits begin to impose themselves on the internet, will our vocabulary change?
Examining the cultural and societal influence on space and its occupation led me to consider the evolution of space's role in accomplishing the American Dream. We think about personal spaces when we consider the house with the green lawn and white picket fence. Occupying this space was once a sense of prestige, while today, the prestige of owning space has ascended to the top of Manhattan skyscrapers. As we lose space, does the possesion of internet domain display prestige or accomplishment of the American Dream? Will this possession become more prestigious due to the recent occupation of internet space? Examining the change in internet-related vocabulary might give us insight into the cultural and social meaning of space within "cyberspace".
E-learning in Poverty
I must admit to my high impression of out recent class reading, "Leonardo's Laptop". While I was skeptical about the original analogies drawn between integrating different aspects of technology and Leonardo DaVinci's integrations of science and art, I'm becoming increasingly impressed with the parallels, and increasingly curious as to what Leonardo would do in this day and age. I suppose, however, we would have to contemplate his access to modern technology as an illegitimate child (don't most in that bracket end up in poverty these days?).
My real inquisition on the reading, however, had less to do with the Leonardo analogies and more to do with technology in poverty. I read much about a desire for universal usability of technology, and the many barriers that need to be broken for us to start seeing the inner city investing in e-commerce, e-healthcare, and e-learning. E-commerce and healthcare seem intuitively to match well with wealthier audiences. Is it really true, however, that this same audience uses e-learning? I'm becoming convinced that e-learning (internet colleges, self-instructed classroom learning, etc) target and interest a less wealthy population.
How many of you, while watching ER, Law and Order, or Friends (stereotypically targeted towards a wealthier audience), have seen a commercial for Strayer University or University of Pheonix Online? Thinking again, who has seen one of these ads while watching the stereotypically "low class" programs (I'm not ragging, I love them!) such as Judge Judy or Jerry Springer? This type of e-learning is possibly targeting a jobless audience that might happen to be sitting in front of a television at 2 in the afternoon. Alright, let's say that my entire point is based on a series of stereotypes.
My boyfriend is a teacher at a Cleveland Public Schools charter school called Life Skills. Life Skills uses internet-based technology to provide self-instructed audio/visual educational lessons (with individual assisstance from teachers) to students aged 16-23 in 3 hour blocks of time. Life Skills targets a population that can't spend 8 hours a day in school due to the need to work to support family or the need to raise a child. These schools are very popular in inner cities. I'd be curious to know whether the lack of technology and technology education for poorer areas stands for e-learning.
My Love/Hate Relationship with the Nord Labs
Struck by a combination of class discussion and our readings (especially the research commentary on Nomadic Computing), I discovered ironies in the ways many of us prefer to use technology. While reading about the mobility as one of the three essential features of a nomadic environment, I contemplated the technology in my surroundings. Naturally, I was in Nord and it occurred to me that the Nord computer lab is most likely a determining factor in the popularity of the building; PC use grew so popular that a second lab was created. Sure, these computers are not mobile in the least- one might think that their popularity is due to the fact that desktop owners need to access computers in the middle of the day and are not willing to take the hike back to their dorms. But I'd be curious to know- how many of the Nord lab's visitors own laptops that they can easily tote across campus? My guess is that, if not a majority, a large portion of the visitors are fully capable of bringing one's own laptop. Why do we/I do this? Is it truly fair to those who only own desktops? Sometimes I've taken the last computer simply to check my e-mail in order to keep up with student organization information. The truth is that I'm simply too lazy to carry around my 4-pound laptop. Maybe, however, there's novelty to using those computers and being in community with 40 other e-mail checkers, solitaire players, and facebook browsers. What do you think?
Another irony I've discovered in relation to the Nord labs in personalization. We've spoken in class about desires for personalization of PCs and cell phones, and the research commentary expresses interest in maximizing personalization. Perhaps those in control of the Nord facilities believed that personalization would make the computer lab experience more enjoyable, so much that they implemented personal settings and the ability to keep one's own files in one's own folders, set a desktop background, have a personal printer page limit, etc. How nice and personal. Is it just me, or do you hate having to sign in and wait 2 minutes just so that you have your own folder? There is something appealing about the communalism of these machines- I could read Joe Fell's treatise on the benefits of nonprofits, or Mike Greer's lab report! It just reminds me that we're all in this together. Meanwhile, my folder is ever lonesome. Does this make me an overly curious stalker, or an advocate of the sharing of human expression?
In light of our recent readings and conversations, what keeps the Nord labs so popular?