After taking a hiatus from commenting on our peer's blogs, we wrote comments responding to our group members posts numbers 10-14. The purpose of this was to give our partner's some ideas for how to unite their posts into a theme for their final project; highlighting the best parts of their work and analyzing it to help them edit down what they already have into the framework for their essay.
Marco,
I think that from looking at your posts for assignments 10-14, I really have the feeling that your are on track to put together a really coherent and interesting essay. From all of the posts, I liked the uniqueness of one of your points in this specific post.
You talk briefly about how digital activity can be attributed to accessibility in that the choice between physical activity and digital activity is a no- brainer. I agree with this, physical activity especially in my life is always the priority over any digital interaction, because I just like being out and "actually" doing something.
Their seemed to be a common unifying theme in your post that incorporates the idea of the actual choice which people make, and the choice which fictional characters (such as those in "Feed" make). The idea that we realistically can chose how long and at what times we tap into the digital world, is drastically different from the all-day, every-day kind of exposure that the kids in Feed were subjected to.
If you use that fiction vs. non-fiction lens to write your essay, I feel like you will end up with a really interesting essay that is quite different than the others that are going to be written for our final project.
I wanted to focus on this concept in your posts specifically because I tried to convey a similar thing on my blog. I found that I couldn't really articulate this, and you did, which is to your credit as it was a really good (and interesting) point.
Good job Marco, I like what you have been doing on your blog, and I hope to read your undoubtedly unique essay once we have completed our digital unit. Your work always gives me new ideas and makes me think deeper, keep it up!
Jake F.
-----------------------------
Beatrice,
I really like how you don't get hung up in your writing, and move from point to point, without useless filler. I definitely feel like you put alot of thought into your posts and it shows. You tend to say alot more in a few paragraphs, than some people do in entire page long posts.
Your point about being "out of whack with reality" really made me think about how we actually seem to take most of our social cues from things we see in the media, in movies and in the digital world. I.E., we like our "real" lives partly through popular ideas and false representations.
Although I liked your post, I was kinda confused by your last part about "not reading books literally". Specifically pertaining to "The Jungle". I get your point about how we can't look at Feed literally, because the concept of that book lies deep below its surface, so reading it literally would be worthless. As far as Sinclair's book is concerned, the result of reading that book literally, lead to the pure food and drug act of 1906, and is directly why we have an FDA (food and drug administration) today. So why you would think that was a bad thing, I'm not sure.
The concept of ourselves [the reader] as the hammer, and Feed as the nail, is something I strongly agree with. I think this is quite similar to what I wrote in my post, and I would encourage you to branch off of this to further develop that point into an section of your final essay.
Nice work, with the exception of that one point about The Jungle, I really think your right on target with what you were saying. Your arguments are thought out and coherent, and of what you expressed I felt pretty in sync with. Keep it up Beatrice
Jake F.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
HW 14- Second Text (long excerpt)
The excerpt I read was the full 100 page one, which discussed fallacies and misconceptions concerning the educational value (or lack their of) of Video- Games, Television and the Internet. The book's title "Everything Bad is Good For You", also happens to be the main ideology that the author Steven Johnson is trying to support. His main arguments are quite broad, and dig deeper than the common knowledge, which consists for the most part of assumptions that are (according to the author) unfounded, and the book's intent is to disprove those very assumptions.
The first argument, which encompasses all of the three media forms is that all of this technological innovation has a strong developmental value personally and globally, which we generally don't recognize. Underneath this main concept, lies three sub-arguments (Video-Games, T.V., and Internet) that serve as evidence to support the main concept by stating the different forms of intellectual growth they stimulate.
According to the excerpt, video-games help to develop your logical abilities to think and problem solve. The step-by-step way that games are structured give us a lesson in how to tackle a larger problem by first dealing with the smaller tasks in order to build your way up to that point. These games also teach us logical thinking because you have to use methods including trial-and-error, and testing the limits of the game's programing to develop a plan or strategy so that you can beat it. Additionally, some video-games can teach you how to solve a problem by first putting it into perspective and organizing your actions in a way that allows you to quickly achieve that goal (step-by-step).
Television is the second example of a developmental tool which is often thought of as counter-productive to our intellectual progression. Johnson sites T.V. as something that increases our social intelligence and lowers our AQ (Autism Quotient) by making us think about complex relationships, and multiple story-lines in shows like "E.R." and "West Wing". He even sites reality T.V. as a subtle way television acts as a developmental platform for understanding social interaction via an unusual and entertaining (to some) premise.
His third example, is the Internet. This is a very basic and much more obvious example, but important nonetheless. Johnson states the Internet is a socially connecting tool that, if used properly (and not for games and YouTube) can be vital in enhancing our awareness and ability to gather and compile information. The Internet after all is the largest compilation of information and data in history, making it a resource with a huge potential to educate, but only if it is used for that purpose.
After reading this excerpt, I came away from it feeling uniquely different than I have after reading anything else before. Looking back at my notes I took while reading, I noticed that I agreed with about the same amount of what I read, as what I disagreed with. The way the book started, I had a very different expectation for what it was going to be about and how it was going to be structured. Johnson's first argument was; Had books been developed after video-games, books would have the same reputation as an effective educational platform as video-games actually had (meaning they wouldn't be accepted as educational devices at all). To me, this seemed to be a highly specious argument with little to no merit whatsoever. Even after reading the excerpt, I still feel that this was not a very coherent argument.
After that first part, the rest of his arguments seemed to be pretty solid. What he actually presented wasn't problematic, it was however problematic that he worked from a premise that was not quite as solid. The way I read the book, I believe that his arguments can be placed into two categories. The first is "subconscious development", which is intellectual development that is attributed to doing something like play World of Warcraft for fun, but end up learning management skills and problem solving through perspective. The second, is "conscious improvement", where you recognize something like reality television, that can improve your social skills, but need to take an extra step to make use of that opportunity, otherwise you gain nothing from it. The problem with most of Johnson's arguments, is that he puts every single one of them into the subconscious category, and works off the premise that we unconditionally benefit from these games, shows and websites.
In Steven Johnson's evaluation that all of these things have the potential to develop our minds, he is absolutely correct, his book is itself a testament to that. The problem is, because of all the fluff, the plots of the stupid reality shows, the subject matter of the video games, and the crap that floods the majority of the Internet, we often get sidetracked by the surface and thus don't ever look deeper, even if we do absorb it, we don't realize it, and thus never develop it. An example of my theory, can be proven using myself as an example. When I was in Kindergarten, I learned to read. That isn't why I can read well now. The reason that I read well now, is that I developed this skill from the point I learned to read up until right now. The idea that we can be "hypnotized" by the new media is not very stable and takes a huge leap from a solid idea, to a theorized connection.
I think that the main way that this excerpt contradicts the main idea of "Feed" is that Feed is based off of the idea that technological developments lead to apathy and loss of self, while the author of "Everything Bad is Good For You" is based off of the idea that these developments lead to mental improvement and discovery of ones self. In some ways, Johnson does indirectly support Tobin's point, because they do both agree that the improved technology causes much more information to be accessed easier, with alot less effort on the part of people to obtain it, and learn it.
The first argument, which encompasses all of the three media forms is that all of this technological innovation has a strong developmental value personally and globally, which we generally don't recognize. Underneath this main concept, lies three sub-arguments (Video-Games, T.V., and Internet) that serve as evidence to support the main concept by stating the different forms of intellectual growth they stimulate.
According to the excerpt, video-games help to develop your logical abilities to think and problem solve. The step-by-step way that games are structured give us a lesson in how to tackle a larger problem by first dealing with the smaller tasks in order to build your way up to that point. These games also teach us logical thinking because you have to use methods including trial-and-error, and testing the limits of the game's programing to develop a plan or strategy so that you can beat it. Additionally, some video-games can teach you how to solve a problem by first putting it into perspective and organizing your actions in a way that allows you to quickly achieve that goal (step-by-step).
Television is the second example of a developmental tool which is often thought of as counter-productive to our intellectual progression. Johnson sites T.V. as something that increases our social intelligence and lowers our AQ (Autism Quotient) by making us think about complex relationships, and multiple story-lines in shows like "E.R." and "West Wing". He even sites reality T.V. as a subtle way television acts as a developmental platform for understanding social interaction via an unusual and entertaining (to some) premise.
His third example, is the Internet. This is a very basic and much more obvious example, but important nonetheless. Johnson states the Internet is a socially connecting tool that, if used properly (and not for games and YouTube) can be vital in enhancing our awareness and ability to gather and compile information. The Internet after all is the largest compilation of information and data in history, making it a resource with a huge potential to educate, but only if it is used for that purpose.
After reading this excerpt, I came away from it feeling uniquely different than I have after reading anything else before. Looking back at my notes I took while reading, I noticed that I agreed with about the same amount of what I read, as what I disagreed with. The way the book started, I had a very different expectation for what it was going to be about and how it was going to be structured. Johnson's first argument was; Had books been developed after video-games, books would have the same reputation as an effective educational platform as video-games actually had (meaning they wouldn't be accepted as educational devices at all). To me, this seemed to be a highly specious argument with little to no merit whatsoever. Even after reading the excerpt, I still feel that this was not a very coherent argument.
After that first part, the rest of his arguments seemed to be pretty solid. What he actually presented wasn't problematic, it was however problematic that he worked from a premise that was not quite as solid. The way I read the book, I believe that his arguments can be placed into two categories. The first is "subconscious development", which is intellectual development that is attributed to doing something like play World of Warcraft for fun, but end up learning management skills and problem solving through perspective. The second, is "conscious improvement", where you recognize something like reality television, that can improve your social skills, but need to take an extra step to make use of that opportunity, otherwise you gain nothing from it. The problem with most of Johnson's arguments, is that he puts every single one of them into the subconscious category, and works off the premise that we unconditionally benefit from these games, shows and websites.
In Steven Johnson's evaluation that all of these things have the potential to develop our minds, he is absolutely correct, his book is itself a testament to that. The problem is, because of all the fluff, the plots of the stupid reality shows, the subject matter of the video games, and the crap that floods the majority of the Internet, we often get sidetracked by the surface and thus don't ever look deeper, even if we do absorb it, we don't realize it, and thus never develop it. An example of my theory, can be proven using myself as an example. When I was in Kindergarten, I learned to read. That isn't why I can read well now. The reason that I read well now, is that I developed this skill from the point I learned to read up until right now. The idea that we can be "hypnotized" by the new media is not very stable and takes a huge leap from a solid idea, to a theorized connection.
I think that the main way that this excerpt contradicts the main idea of "Feed" is that Feed is based off of the idea that technological developments lead to apathy and loss of self, while the author of "Everything Bad is Good For You" is based off of the idea that these developments lead to mental improvement and discovery of ones self. In some ways, Johnson does indirectly support Tobin's point, because they do both agree that the improved technology causes much more information to be accessed easier, with alot less effort on the part of people to obtain it, and learn it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
HW 13- Feed B
After reading Feed, and writing the last assignment, I feel as if I may have done exactly what I argued M.T. Anderson did which I didn't agree with in that very post (See HW 12- Feed A). I think that by assuming that Anderson didn't take other countries into consideration in his novel, I skipped over the real point which lay behind his literary choice to focus on the United States as the antagonist country against the global alliance as the protagonist.
I think that the point he had was to reveal through a certain literary style how we in America sometimes see the world, but specifically how in Feed, the main characters only saw America and not the world. Bert Brecht said that art is not a "mirror" to view the world, but a "hammer" which can be used to shape it. In my opinion, the metaphor of a mirror and hammer is very apt, but not completely accurate in Brecht's evaluation of what a hammer and a mirror can do. I think that in order to use a hammer, we need to first look at that mirror, because it is vital that one understands what needs to be changed in the world before we use the hammer to change it.
Feed is a mirror, a work of art which puts our world into a subjective light for us to perceive ourselves. M.T. Anderson I believe, wrote this book to use as a mirror so that we the catalyst can become the hammer which takes action and changes the world. The reason that I don't think Feed itself is a hammer, is because it isn't a book which puts forth new ideas or revolutionary concepts, it simply restates concepts which have been looked at many times before.
A book which is a hammer, is a manifesto, a work comprised of the basic methodology behind a group, organization or government. Because Anderson wrote this to reveal something about the modern world, I think that he wanted this to be a book which young-adults read. The way I see it, people all have the ability to change the world, but only if they have a unified effort which is spread out enough across the world. By the time people are adults, they are very independent and no longer have a real sense of unity like when we are young. This unity within younger people is because they are able to relate more and have very similar interests. Such a narrow spectrum of things which interest younger people, I think is directly spoken to by the narrow focus which Anderson uses in his novel. It's with that in mind that I reached the conclusion that Feed was written for young adults, but intended for any one, of any age, who wants to change. Be it on the personal level, global, or anywhere in between.
I think that the point he had was to reveal through a certain literary style how we in America sometimes see the world, but specifically how in Feed, the main characters only saw America and not the world. Bert Brecht said that art is not a "mirror" to view the world, but a "hammer" which can be used to shape it. In my opinion, the metaphor of a mirror and hammer is very apt, but not completely accurate in Brecht's evaluation of what a hammer and a mirror can do. I think that in order to use a hammer, we need to first look at that mirror, because it is vital that one understands what needs to be changed in the world before we use the hammer to change it.
Feed is a mirror, a work of art which puts our world into a subjective light for us to perceive ourselves. M.T. Anderson I believe, wrote this book to use as a mirror so that we the catalyst can become the hammer which takes action and changes the world. The reason that I don't think Feed itself is a hammer, is because it isn't a book which puts forth new ideas or revolutionary concepts, it simply restates concepts which have been looked at many times before.
A book which is a hammer, is a manifesto, a work comprised of the basic methodology behind a group, organization or government. Because Anderson wrote this to reveal something about the modern world, I think that he wanted this to be a book which young-adults read. The way I see it, people all have the ability to change the world, but only if they have a unified effort which is spread out enough across the world. By the time people are adults, they are very independent and no longer have a real sense of unity like when we are young. This unity within younger people is because they are able to relate more and have very similar interests. Such a narrow spectrum of things which interest younger people, I think is directly spoken to by the narrow focus which Anderson uses in his novel. It's with that in mind that I reached the conclusion that Feed was written for young adults, but intended for any one, of any age, who wants to change. Be it on the personal level, global, or anywhere in between.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
HW 12- Feed A
Last weekend, I finished reading Feed by M.T. Anderson for the second time. I thought that it would be pointless for me to read the book again, but as it turned out, I did miss some very key elements of the storyline and the metaphorical underlay of the book. In my opinion, Feed is a very well- written book, but that is not to say I feel it is 100% correct in its assessment of the threat of digitization. The brilliant part of the book, is not that Anderson uses dense and deeply buried allegories to make a point about today's society, because the book is not dense. The book is very thinly disguised as a story about the future, but it is quite obvious that it was intended to be about the current world. That is what makes this book so good. The fact that almost anyone can read it and recognize the point which he tries to get across is why the message in Feed is so strong.
Reading the book, however was not a fun experience. I didn't like reading a book which was geared to make you hate the society and the characters because of what deplorable people they were, when in fact those people are us, and that society is the one we live in today. So pretty much, this book made me a little angry at myself, which frankly I didn't like.
A few weeks ago, Andy had posed the question; "What does it take for a person to stop certain behavior?". Everyone gave answers (including myself) which were pretty standard such as, "when the person wants to", or "when the person is afraid of the consequence of their actions". After reading Feed, I realized that people change their actions only when they see somebody else doing the same thing, and they react to it negatively, causing them to reflect on their own actions. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that since I re-read Feed, I cut down my time on Facebook and iChat to about 30 minutes a day combined. I was so disgusted by the ignorance that Titus and his friends displayed that it made me slightly disgusted by my own networking and chatting behaviors.
To an extent, Feed is on point, it does accurately depict our current teenage lifestyle in America (and any other industrialized country for that matter), keeping in mind that the plot is an allegory which is an intentional exaggeration of present day digital use. In class, I was discussing the part of the book where Titus' father tells Titus and Violet that the forest was clear cut to make space for an "air- factory" which was to be built. This of course was a little bit of dark humor about the fact that forests are natural air factories themselves. Marco continued with this thought, and made a really interesting comparison between the air factories and the idea of synthetically breeding livestock to produce more meat, something which we learned last year in out food unit.
Largely, I felt that the main issue of Feed was that Anderson took a really radical and almost hateful position against America, and against teenagers. Anderson discredits himself a little bit because he focuses solely on America as the supercharged consumer nation which is causing planetary destruction; a less than scholarly approach in my opinion. I felt as if Anderson had a sense of self-riotousness and condescending assurance that what he is saying is the "real" truth.
I want to close out this assignment by stating a few of my concerns about reading Feed for this class. Mainly, in books such as Feed, which reveal social behaviors to people for the first time, their tends to be a "bible effect" if you will. What I mean is that people see such texts as something holy and accept that as truth. Let me be clear, FEED IS NOT THE TRUTH. It is a biased look at a growing UNIVERSAL problem. If anything should be taken from this, it's that we should value life, and take care of our planet, but not hate ourselves for the lives we lead. Books like this one omit specific things for certain [intended] reasons. While I don't know what the reasons Anderson had for deciding that China with its lack of labor, trade and pollution regulations should have no responsibility as a destructive nation in his story is beyond me.
Reading the book, however was not a fun experience. I didn't like reading a book which was geared to make you hate the society and the characters because of what deplorable people they were, when in fact those people are us, and that society is the one we live in today. So pretty much, this book made me a little angry at myself, which frankly I didn't like.
A few weeks ago, Andy had posed the question; "What does it take for a person to stop certain behavior?". Everyone gave answers (including myself) which were pretty standard such as, "when the person wants to", or "when the person is afraid of the consequence of their actions". After reading Feed, I realized that people change their actions only when they see somebody else doing the same thing, and they react to it negatively, causing them to reflect on their own actions. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that since I re-read Feed, I cut down my time on Facebook and iChat to about 30 minutes a day combined. I was so disgusted by the ignorance that Titus and his friends displayed that it made me slightly disgusted by my own networking and chatting behaviors.
To an extent, Feed is on point, it does accurately depict our current teenage lifestyle in America (and any other industrialized country for that matter), keeping in mind that the plot is an allegory which is an intentional exaggeration of present day digital use. In class, I was discussing the part of the book where Titus' father tells Titus and Violet that the forest was clear cut to make space for an "air- factory" which was to be built. This of course was a little bit of dark humor about the fact that forests are natural air factories themselves. Marco continued with this thought, and made a really interesting comparison between the air factories and the idea of synthetically breeding livestock to produce more meat, something which we learned last year in out food unit.
Largely, I felt that the main issue of Feed was that Anderson took a really radical and almost hateful position against America, and against teenagers. Anderson discredits himself a little bit because he focuses solely on America as the supercharged consumer nation which is causing planetary destruction; a less than scholarly approach in my opinion. I felt as if Anderson had a sense of self-riotousness and condescending assurance that what he is saying is the "real" truth.
I want to close out this assignment by stating a few of my concerns about reading Feed for this class. Mainly, in books such as Feed, which reveal social behaviors to people for the first time, their tends to be a "bible effect" if you will. What I mean is that people see such texts as something holy and accept that as truth. Let me be clear, FEED IS NOT THE TRUTH. It is a biased look at a growing UNIVERSAL problem. If anything should be taken from this, it's that we should value life, and take care of our planet, but not hate ourselves for the lives we lead. Books like this one omit specific things for certain [intended] reasons. While I don't know what the reasons Anderson had for deciding that China with its lack of labor, trade and pollution regulations should have no responsibility as a destructive nation in his story is beyond me.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
HW 11- Self Experiment
The next step in our investigation of the digital world, was to conduct an experiment where we changed our electronic behavior for a full day. I decided on Tuesday that the next day (yesterday), I would refrain from any electronic use for any reason other than to do work. This meant; No ipod, No itunes, No ichat, No facebook, No cell phone. I decided that I would only use my computer to type my homework for Mr. Kinory's class, do my online physics homework, and check if you had put up the assignment for HW #11.
The next day, I went to school, and took my phone. I guess I forgot. I didn't take my ipod, and for the most part, I didn't even use my phone. After school I pretty much hung out in front of school for a little bit, and than headed home with my brother. He called one of our friends and we met up with him and our other friend at 14th street and 7th avenue, and walked the rest of the way back home with them. Me and Max (my brother) went home and did homework, than later on, we went upstairs to our neighbors house and chilled with our friend Claire. We ate dinner their, I went to the deli and than went home. Later on, around 10, my friend Hunter came over. We hung out and played Xbox for about 45 minutes. After that, Hunter went home. My dad and I watched a program on health care for about half an half hour. When I was tired, I read for a little while, and fell asleep.
On the other hand, I successfully only used my computer to do homework and was able to refrain from any additional activity on my laptop. When I was on the computer, I realized that I really did have to remind myself that I wasn't going to "surf the web" or "just see who was on AIM really quickly", or "check my facebook and get right off".
After I did most of my homework, me and Max hung out with our neighbor/ friend Claire. For the most part, we just hung out, talked, relaxed and really didn't do anything digital besides listen to some music on her iphone for a bit. I had alot of fun, and really didn't want to do anything like watch TV or go on her computer, because I was having alot more fun hanging out at her house, talking, eating and just relaxing.
Max went home, I went with Claire over to the deli. My phone had been with me the entire day, I didn't really call anyone, a few friends called me and I received some text messages, but for the most part, I used my phone very little throughout the day. As I walked with her, I got a call from Hunter, and answered it. The call couldn't have been more than 20 seconds, but in that time we decided that he would come over to my house and hang out for an hour.
I feel like the main thing that I noticed throughout the day was that I really only cut back on most things, and didn't actually stop using technology for a full day. I cutback alot of my cellphone usage, and somehow hung out with 4 friends at three different times between after school and the end of the night. I successfully only used my laptop for homework, but in actuality, I still used it. I watched TV even if for 30 minutes, and I played Xbox, even if it was only for 45 minutes.
What I find so interesting about what I did throughout my "No Technology" day, is that I really didn't have a "No" Technology day, but a "Less Technology" day.
The problem is, I really couldn't help but bring my phone with me. I couldn't help but watch TV. I tried to not go on itunes, but when I went to my friend's house, I ended up listening to music anyway. What I did cut out however, was a good part of the entertainment aspect of the digital world. In all, the half hour of TV, and the 45 minutes of Xbox, accounted for my 1 hour 15 minutes of digital entertainment in my day.
I noticed though, when I was at my house, and through the entire day, how I used my time, and the way I conducted digital activities was different. As I watched TV, I discussed the health care debate with my dad. When I played Xbox, me and Hunter talked to each other and laughed about what was happening in the game. So to a certain extent, I think that doing things like play Xbox, or watch TV, or listen to music are good things. In the end it's how you do it, you can't immerse yourself in the digital world, you have to maintain a mental attachment to your surroundings, because otherwise technology has a disembodying effect on you.
The next day, I went to school, and took my phone. I guess I forgot. I didn't take my ipod, and for the most part, I didn't even use my phone. After school I pretty much hung out in front of school for a little bit, and than headed home with my brother. He called one of our friends and we met up with him and our other friend at 14th street and 7th avenue, and walked the rest of the way back home with them. Me and Max (my brother) went home and did homework, than later on, we went upstairs to our neighbors house and chilled with our friend Claire. We ate dinner their, I went to the deli and than went home. Later on, around 10, my friend Hunter came over. We hung out and played Xbox for about 45 minutes. After that, Hunter went home. My dad and I watched a program on health care for about half an half hour. When I was tired, I read for a little while, and fell asleep.
On the other hand, I successfully only used my computer to do homework and was able to refrain from any additional activity on my laptop. When I was on the computer, I realized that I really did have to remind myself that I wasn't going to "surf the web" or "just see who was on AIM really quickly", or "check my facebook and get right off".
After I did most of my homework, me and Max hung out with our neighbor/ friend Claire. For the most part, we just hung out, talked, relaxed and really didn't do anything digital besides listen to some music on her iphone for a bit. I had alot of fun, and really didn't want to do anything like watch TV or go on her computer, because I was having alot more fun hanging out at her house, talking, eating and just relaxing.
Max went home, I went with Claire over to the deli. My phone had been with me the entire day, I didn't really call anyone, a few friends called me and I received some text messages, but for the most part, I used my phone very little throughout the day. As I walked with her, I got a call from Hunter, and answered it. The call couldn't have been more than 20 seconds, but in that time we decided that he would come over to my house and hang out for an hour.
I feel like the main thing that I noticed throughout the day was that I really only cut back on most things, and didn't actually stop using technology for a full day. I cutback alot of my cellphone usage, and somehow hung out with 4 friends at three different times between after school and the end of the night. I successfully only used my laptop for homework, but in actuality, I still used it. I watched TV even if for 30 minutes, and I played Xbox, even if it was only for 45 minutes.
What I find so interesting about what I did throughout my "No Technology" day, is that I really didn't have a "No" Technology day, but a "Less Technology" day.
The problem is, I really couldn't help but bring my phone with me. I couldn't help but watch TV. I tried to not go on itunes, but when I went to my friend's house, I ended up listening to music anyway. What I did cut out however, was a good part of the entertainment aspect of the digital world. In all, the half hour of TV, and the 45 minutes of Xbox, accounted for my 1 hour 15 minutes of digital entertainment in my day.
I noticed though, when I was at my house, and through the entire day, how I used my time, and the way I conducted digital activities was different. As I watched TV, I discussed the health care debate with my dad. When I played Xbox, me and Hunter talked to each other and laughed about what was happening in the game. So to a certain extent, I think that doing things like play Xbox, or watch TV, or listen to music are good things. In the end it's how you do it, you can't immerse yourself in the digital world, you have to maintain a mental attachment to your surroundings, because otherwise technology has a disembodying effect on you.
Monday, October 5, 2009
HW 10- Internet Research: Cloud Networks
Cloud Computing; What is it? Is it the Future? Is it the Future of Our Medical Records?
Site #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
Site #2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111421072
Site #3: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202432957427&Electronic_Health_Records_Facing_the_Issues
Site #4: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-healthrecords_14bus.ART0.State.Edition2.4bb476e.html
I had heard about a form of online data storage called "the cloud network" but never really knew what it was. In my research I decided that I would figure out what exactly a cloud network is. I looked at three different online sources. The first was the Wikipedia entry on cloud computing.
1. Wikipedia
According to wikipedia, the "cloud network" is a metaphor used to describe the intangible network used for e-mail storage (i.e. yahoo or gmail), online stores (amazon and ebay), and blogging sites such as blogger. These are all controlled by a single server which operates multiple web pages or web addresses in a sort of "digital cloud". The term cloud refers to the fact that we know it's their, in fact every time we click a link we get proof that it is, but we just can't see it, its not tangible (you know, like the clouds).
As I read the article, I discovered that the idea of a cloud network has a highly significant and unique effect on the capitalist economy. In a cloud network, the companies which choose to register their online stores with a server company such as IBM, they are able to avoid any capital expenditure costs as they don't need to pay any money for the hardware, or space on the server. Basically, what this means is that the online cloud network industry is an industry which relies on providers to take the hit for capital costs, while the other 95% of the industry composed of the merchants, pay nothing in capital other than electric bills.
The downside to this, is that the companies which control these servers have complete access to the data which other companies and merchants compile on their sites which are serviced by the providers servers. For example, lets say you buy a pair of shoes on Amazon, and their server is controlled by IBM (I don't know if it is, but for this example, its irrelevant), all the information that you filled out to have the shoes billed to you through your AmEx card, and your home address goes not only to Amazon, but to the server at IBM as well.
So next time you fill out a "secure form" on the Internet, just consider this; on a digital cloud, how secure can your personal information actually be?
2. NPR
The second website that I visited was NPR. After I discovered what a cloud network was, I wanted to figure out who actually owns that data, and who has access to all of it.
Cloud data is by no means limited to online stores, but is also mainly a service used by email services the likes of google, yahoo, AOL and others. Its been common knowledge since the "patriot act" was passed that the telecommunications companies have had access to our phone conversations and text messages, but who is in charge of the billions of emails sent every day between friends, family and businesses?
Well in the link I was looking at on NPR's website, the data is all controlled by the company who owns the server which you communicate on. For example, if your on gmail, the message you sent legally belongs to google, they have it, and their is pretty much nothing you can do about that. When you click "yes" on the users agreement, you give the owner of that cloud network ownership rights to your emails
Being developed though, is a program to stop these companies from being able to store your email conversations. A program called "Vanish" is being developed so that the only people who posses the emails are you and the person it was sent to, not the companies and not anyone else, once the involved parties have opened the files, the file begins to expire and eventually Vanish so that nobody else will have access to it.
This program is really for highly confidential emails, but can be used for anything you want, provided you don't mind anyone else reading your email.
3. CNET News
Now I knew what a cloud network was, and I knew that the online communications companies like IBM have all our information. Not much of that came as a surprise to me, but was pretty interesting nonetheless. Now I was wondering where else clouds might be used in the world.
It was at that point I remembered my mom telling me that she needed to get to work early last week because the hospitals were switching over from paper records to digital records. Seeing as that would be nothing more than a massive online database, I decided to look into whether the medical records were being converted to a new cloud network. Guess what? IT IS!
I was looking on Law.com in the legal technology portion of the website when I found an article about the Cloud network being used in the transition from paper documentation to digital. What I found was that companies like Dell and IBM are at the forefront of this transition and therefore will be the institutions in charge of all of our medical records. This is kind of fucked up, when you consider that their job will be to simply provide the servers to connect all the data from hospital to hospital. Since their has never been a medical cloud before, what the companies do with that data is for now completely unregulated.
4. Dallas News
In this Dallas News article, the question of who stands to profit from this transition is raised. The idea that this will make the need for much more computer technology in hospitals mandatory is something which almost every company in the tech industry will be clamoring for to get the grant to put their systems in the hands of doctors and hospitals across the country.
After I read this article, I noticed that it mentioned an IT company which will be acting as the managing IT company for the "medical cloud". That company was called "Perot Systems". I looked into related articles on the Dallas News website and found that the company was bought out by Dell for $3.9 billion less than half a month ago. The reason for the acquisition is quite clear, with Perot controlled by Dell, Dell was able to control any competition it would have for IT in hospitals once the transition began to take place.
This is not a good thing, overall, this cloud network in hospitals is definitely an upgrade and if done properly can be much more efficient and improve the American health care system. If done improperly, this will simply become just another way to industrialize our health care. Seeing as this is after all part of Obama's plan, doesn't this seem like something which counteracts the movement towards National Health, and opens up an entirely new way for companies to profit off of the health of the American people?
Site #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
Site #2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111421072
Site #3: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202432957427&Electronic_Health_Records_Facing_the_Issues
Site #4: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-healthrecords_14bus.ART0.State.Edition2.4bb476e.html
I had heard about a form of online data storage called "the cloud network" but never really knew what it was. In my research I decided that I would figure out what exactly a cloud network is. I looked at three different online sources. The first was the Wikipedia entry on cloud computing.
1. Wikipedia
According to wikipedia, the "cloud network" is a metaphor used to describe the intangible network used for e-mail storage (i.e. yahoo or gmail), online stores (amazon and ebay), and blogging sites such as blogger. These are all controlled by a single server which operates multiple web pages or web addresses in a sort of "digital cloud". The term cloud refers to the fact that we know it's their, in fact every time we click a link we get proof that it is, but we just can't see it, its not tangible (you know, like the clouds).
As I read the article, I discovered that the idea of a cloud network has a highly significant and unique effect on the capitalist economy. In a cloud network, the companies which choose to register their online stores with a server company such as IBM, they are able to avoid any capital expenditure costs as they don't need to pay any money for the hardware, or space on the server. Basically, what this means is that the online cloud network industry is an industry which relies on providers to take the hit for capital costs, while the other 95% of the industry composed of the merchants, pay nothing in capital other than electric bills.
The downside to this, is that the companies which control these servers have complete access to the data which other companies and merchants compile on their sites which are serviced by the providers servers. For example, lets say you buy a pair of shoes on Amazon, and their server is controlled by IBM (I don't know if it is, but for this example, its irrelevant), all the information that you filled out to have the shoes billed to you through your AmEx card, and your home address goes not only to Amazon, but to the server at IBM as well.
So next time you fill out a "secure form" on the Internet, just consider this; on a digital cloud, how secure can your personal information actually be?
2. NPR
The second website that I visited was NPR. After I discovered what a cloud network was, I wanted to figure out who actually owns that data, and who has access to all of it.
Cloud data is by no means limited to online stores, but is also mainly a service used by email services the likes of google, yahoo, AOL and others. Its been common knowledge since the "patriot act" was passed that the telecommunications companies have had access to our phone conversations and text messages, but who is in charge of the billions of emails sent every day between friends, family and businesses?
Well in the link I was looking at on NPR's website, the data is all controlled by the company who owns the server which you communicate on. For example, if your on gmail, the message you sent legally belongs to google, they have it, and their is pretty much nothing you can do about that. When you click "yes" on the users agreement, you give the owner of that cloud network ownership rights to your emails
Being developed though, is a program to stop these companies from being able to store your email conversations. A program called "Vanish" is being developed so that the only people who posses the emails are you and the person it was sent to, not the companies and not anyone else, once the involved parties have opened the files, the file begins to expire and eventually Vanish so that nobody else will have access to it.
This program is really for highly confidential emails, but can be used for anything you want, provided you don't mind anyone else reading your email.
3. CNET News
Now I knew what a cloud network was, and I knew that the online communications companies like IBM have all our information. Not much of that came as a surprise to me, but was pretty interesting nonetheless. Now I was wondering where else clouds might be used in the world.
It was at that point I remembered my mom telling me that she needed to get to work early last week because the hospitals were switching over from paper records to digital records. Seeing as that would be nothing more than a massive online database, I decided to look into whether the medical records were being converted to a new cloud network. Guess what? IT IS!
I was looking on Law.com in the legal technology portion of the website when I found an article about the Cloud network being used in the transition from paper documentation to digital. What I found was that companies like Dell and IBM are at the forefront of this transition and therefore will be the institutions in charge of all of our medical records. This is kind of fucked up, when you consider that their job will be to simply provide the servers to connect all the data from hospital to hospital. Since their has never been a medical cloud before, what the companies do with that data is for now completely unregulated.
4. Dallas News
In this Dallas News article, the question of who stands to profit from this transition is raised. The idea that this will make the need for much more computer technology in hospitals mandatory is something which almost every company in the tech industry will be clamoring for to get the grant to put their systems in the hands of doctors and hospitals across the country.
After I read this article, I noticed that it mentioned an IT company which will be acting as the managing IT company for the "medical cloud". That company was called "Perot Systems". I looked into related articles on the Dallas News website and found that the company was bought out by Dell for $3.9 billion less than half a month ago. The reason for the acquisition is quite clear, with Perot controlled by Dell, Dell was able to control any competition it would have for IT in hospitals once the transition began to take place.
This is not a good thing, overall, this cloud network in hospitals is definitely an upgrade and if done properly can be much more efficient and improve the American health care system. If done improperly, this will simply become just another way to industrialize our health care. Seeing as this is after all part of Obama's plan, doesn't this seem like something which counteracts the movement towards National Health, and opens up an entirely new way for companies to profit off of the health of the American people?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
HW 9- Blog post comment responses
To Marco's Comment:
Marco,
Thanks for taking the time to read my blog, I thought you really saw the main point that I was getting at in my blog. Your comment gave me a thought provoking answer to that main question I asked and made me consider the connection between that point which came up in class about being in control of your life when your online, and the question I raised about why we are captivated by the computer screen and "addicted to the Internet".
I realize that you did take the time to make a really well thought out comment, but I feel like your focus was on the positive parts of the Internet, which are pretty self evident, not the real deeper negative side of the Internet.
That is not to say, you didn't discuss the downside, because you did. I feel like their was one particular flaw that was mutual in both your comment, and my post. The flaw was that we both touched on this idea that we don't get exercise, and are pretty much motionless, but neither of us seemed to propose alternatives. I think the discussion about mental stimulation vs. physical is important, meaning that their is a time to be physically stimulated and a time to just be mentally stimulated.
An example of my mental vs. physical idea, would be playing ping-pong, and playing Halo 3. Ping-pong, which is about just hitting the ball onto the other side of the table, not so much strategy, is a time for physical activity, not mental growth. Halo 3 is about killing aliens, sitting in-front of a screen and coming up with a strategy where you can kill the most possible aliens, without being killed.
--------------------
To Beatrice's Comment:
Beatrice,
I appreciate the time you took to read my blog, and comment thoughtfully on it. The main thing I noticed about your comment was how you used a very conversational tone which really made it seem personal, something which I don't think we see enough of in the digital world.
I definitely like that you didn't think that I needed to work on anything or expand on anything in my post, but I'm sure that there are plenty of things that I could have done better. In a way you do address things I could have expanded on, because you talk about certain point that I made which you agreed with, but in my post I only talk very briefly about them.
At the same time, I think that my point about my lack of an attention span was in a way reflected by the fact that I do just jump from statement to statement in my post without much transition or elaboration on each one. Your comment really made me recognize that and until pretty much now, I hadn't thought much about that.
One way that I think you sort of missed my point is, that you felt I'm more focused on the fact that I knew my attention span was screwed up, but really I was trying to discuss the larger question of "how does technology screw up your attention span?". I didn't actually say that in my post, so given what I literally wrote, I can see how this would seem to be the obvious point that I was intending to get at.
Your question about whether or not technology can keep you satisfied, is really something that I would like to expand on in a future post. I wonder if we are actually fulfilled by technology or it just pumps more needless communication and entertainment into a void which we cannot fill, simply because we don't have any reason to fill that void.
Marco,
Thanks for taking the time to read my blog, I thought you really saw the main point that I was getting at in my blog. Your comment gave me a thought provoking answer to that main question I asked and made me consider the connection between that point which came up in class about being in control of your life when your online, and the question I raised about why we are captivated by the computer screen and "addicted to the Internet".
I realize that you did take the time to make a really well thought out comment, but I feel like your focus was on the positive parts of the Internet, which are pretty self evident, not the real deeper negative side of the Internet.
That is not to say, you didn't discuss the downside, because you did. I feel like their was one particular flaw that was mutual in both your comment, and my post. The flaw was that we both touched on this idea that we don't get exercise, and are pretty much motionless, but neither of us seemed to propose alternatives. I think the discussion about mental stimulation vs. physical is important, meaning that their is a time to be physically stimulated and a time to just be mentally stimulated.
An example of my mental vs. physical idea, would be playing ping-pong, and playing Halo 3. Ping-pong, which is about just hitting the ball onto the other side of the table, not so much strategy, is a time for physical activity, not mental growth. Halo 3 is about killing aliens, sitting in-front of a screen and coming up with a strategy where you can kill the most possible aliens, without being killed.
--------------------
To Beatrice's Comment:
Beatrice,
I appreciate the time you took to read my blog, and comment thoughtfully on it. The main thing I noticed about your comment was how you used a very conversational tone which really made it seem personal, something which I don't think we see enough of in the digital world.
I definitely like that you didn't think that I needed to work on anything or expand on anything in my post, but I'm sure that there are plenty of things that I could have done better. In a way you do address things I could have expanded on, because you talk about certain point that I made which you agreed with, but in my post I only talk very briefly about them.
At the same time, I think that my point about my lack of an attention span was in a way reflected by the fact that I do just jump from statement to statement in my post without much transition or elaboration on each one. Your comment really made me recognize that and until pretty much now, I hadn't thought much about that.
One way that I think you sort of missed my point is, that you felt I'm more focused on the fact that I knew my attention span was screwed up, but really I was trying to discuss the larger question of "how does technology screw up your attention span?". I didn't actually say that in my post, so given what I literally wrote, I can see how this would seem to be the obvious point that I was intending to get at.
Your question about whether or not technology can keep you satisfied, is really something that I would like to expand on in a future post. I wonder if we are actually fulfilled by technology or it just pumps more needless communication and entertainment into a void which we cannot fill, simply because we don't have any reason to fill that void.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)