The title of this research assignment is a piece by George P. Landow. I feel that this is the perfect title and the perfect way to end the semester with what we have talking about in terms of new media. As I am sitting here typing the response for this assignment on Blogger, is an example of what Landow calls “hypertext as digital collage.” Landow doesn’t necessarily define what “hypertext as digital collage” is, but he points out that, “the link establishes a symbolic as well as literal relationship between two elements in a document” (159). This is exactly how our posts appear on Blogger. Sometimes excerpts from articles and books that we find to put in our posts, are linked to the original article or book out on the Web for readers of our blogs to refer to for further understanding of our post. We can also post pictures on Blogger or either link to pictures out on the Web.
Landow also discusses hypertext as collage-writing (hence the title of the essay), which basically discusses how hypertext takes the form of texts originally produced in print. This is clearly an example of how we access assigned reading material for the course on the class website. The material that we are assigned to read were once that of print, they are either scanned or posted on the Web by code and can be accessed by clicking on link or typing in a website’s address.
The purpose of this blog was not to explain, but rather show how this article is so similar to this New Media course. Landow’s article is similar in the way of some of the material we talked about over the semester such as hypertext (O’Gorman) and the teaching aids (Blogger & readings linked off of class webpage) that we have used over the course of the semester. At the beginning of Landow’s article he talks about hypertext as a “vast assemblage.” Well that is how new media, the study of new media, and the way we have discussed new media this semester. New media is several components of technology, news, film, digital, etc… assembled or grouped together to be considered as a whole.
Works CitedLandow, George P. “Hypertext as Collage-Writing.” The Digital Dialectic: New Essays On New Media. Ed. Peter Lunenfield. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999. 159.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Blog#7:Evolution Selection vs. Natural Selection
The idea behind the title of this blog came from a comment that Jacob made in class a couple of weeks ok, and that Dr. Lucas responded on. I can’t remember the question exactly, but basically it was about parents being able to decide the traits they would want their unborn child to have. The presence of new, revolutionary technology in society has given us the ability to determine the outlook of determining who we are or who we become physically. Basically we will be able to change natural selection through evolution selection—hence the title of my blog. This changing of natural selection, or interference of natural selection as I like to call it, will it cause us as society to deviate from being less human to being more like a cyborg? Over the course of the semester we have read several pieces on the “cyborg”—what it is or how we as human beings are becoming or will all be like cyborgs in the future. At first I thought this idea was simply ridiculous, but the more I begin to think about it we are not becoming cyborgs—we are in fact cyborgs right now.
With all the rapid changes in technology people evolving into cyborgs at a rapid rate. In his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil says that: “Technology picks right up with the exponentially quickening pace of evolution. Although not the only tool-using animal, Homo sapiens are distinguished by their creation of technology. Technology goes beyond the mere fashioning and use of tools. It involves a record of tool making and a progression in the sophistication of tools. It requires invention and is itself a continuation of evolution by other means” (14). Kurzweil’s definition of technology is exactly the way that we as humans are using technology to physically change ourselves. The problem with this is our technology (evolution selection) has caught up with natural selection. Kurzweil notes this problem by adding that pretty soon humans will be able to create evolution (natural selection) with technology (evolution selection). Kurzweil response on the problem with technology is basically how we have all become cyborgs in my opinion.
With all the rapid changes in technology people evolving into cyborgs at a rapid rate. In his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil says that: “Technology picks right up with the exponentially quickening pace of evolution. Although not the only tool-using animal, Homo sapiens are distinguished by their creation of technology. Technology goes beyond the mere fashioning and use of tools. It involves a record of tool making and a progression in the sophistication of tools. It requires invention and is itself a continuation of evolution by other means” (14). Kurzweil’s definition of technology is exactly the way that we as humans are using technology to physically change ourselves. The problem with this is our technology (evolution selection) has caught up with natural selection. Kurzweil notes this problem by adding that pretty soon humans will be able to create evolution (natural selection) with technology (evolution selection). Kurzweil response on the problem with technology is basically how we have all become cyborgs in my opinion.
The thought about humans becoming cyborgs was at first ridiculous, but the thought of using technology to create natural selection is just plain scary. Will technology eventually wipe out natural selection completely? or will we just tweak natural selection to make it better suit us? Either way we are deviating from being human like (natural selection) and towards being more like a cyborg (evolution selection). Once upon time natural selection changed us, now we are the ones changing or interfering with natural selection to better suit our needs.
Works Cited
Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines. New York: Penguin, 1999. 14.
Research Assignment#3:The Medium Is the Memory
This piece by Florian Brody entitled, “The Medium Is the Memory,” is similar in title to Marshall McLuhan’s famous piece “The Medium Is the Message;” but there is where the similarities end. Brody’s piece focuses on the book (the medium) as an extension of one’s memory. While McLuhan’s piece focuses on the overall medium of which a message is conveyed through. The purpose of this blog to explain how the medium is the memory in relation to new media.
Brody’s piece starts off by discussing how books are an extension of one’s memory. The way people learned and acquired knowledge was through books he points out. He goes on to add that the book is no longer were people’s dreams and fantasies lie, they can now find them through a digital medium. These digital mediums include: television, film, and the computer. Through digital medium Brody explains, “If medium is a conveyor of memory rather than of messages, this offers us some insight into how to design for mew media” (143). This is where the medium as memory and new media come into play together. It is here that new media is considered to be the medium, and the information that one finds or contains from new media is the memory. Brody goes on to further explain that, “While the relation between the story and the apparatus has been much discussed in relation to film and television, we are only at a point where we can develop a theoretical discourse that ties the consumption of narrative to the media—unlike film and video—have the potential to emerge as a new type of book” (135). Come to think of it this statement is similar to the way educational systems are try change their curriculums to in order to provide a method of teaching where students can retain more of the information the learn by creating mnemonic devices as teaching aids. This statement also reminds me of O’Gorman’s hypericonic devise as well.
Brody’s piece starts off by discussing how books are an extension of one’s memory. The way people learned and acquired knowledge was through books he points out. He goes on to add that the book is no longer were people’s dreams and fantasies lie, they can now find them through a digital medium. These digital mediums include: television, film, and the computer. Through digital medium Brody explains, “If medium is a conveyor of memory rather than of messages, this offers us some insight into how to design for mew media” (143). This is where the medium as memory and new media come into play together. It is here that new media is considered to be the medium, and the information that one finds or contains from new media is the memory. Brody goes on to further explain that, “While the relation between the story and the apparatus has been much discussed in relation to film and television, we are only at a point where we can develop a theoretical discourse that ties the consumption of narrative to the media—unlike film and video—have the potential to emerge as a new type of book” (135). Come to think of it this statement is similar to the way educational systems are try change their curriculums to in order to provide a method of teaching where students can retain more of the information the learn by creating mnemonic devices as teaching aids. This statement also reminds me of O’Gorman’s hypericonic devise as well.
The way new media ties in to the medium as memory is an interesting one. We started off the semester in this course talking about the medium as the message in terms of new media, but I did not quite understand it at first. After reading essay from other new media theorist throughout the semester I understood that the book is the medium while the words it contains is the message. Now after reading Brody’s piece I know that the knowledge attained from the book is the memory.
Works Cited
Brody, Florian. “The Medium Is the Memory.” The Digital Dialectic: New Essays On New Media. Ed. Peter Lunenfield. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999. 135&143.
Blog#6:Revolution GNU: Free Software or is it?
In the piece entitled, “The GNU Manifesto: GNU’s Not Unix!-Free Software, Free Society,” discusses in detailed about what GNU is, the reason for it, its availability, and so on and so forth. Even though this article pushes the benefits of GNU to the forefront, it downplays the contributions needed to maintain the software. This is the point of my blog. Is GNU really free software or is it not?
Richard Stallman wrote the piece “The GNU Manifesto” and in it he clarifies the distinction between GNU not being UNIX. Then he goes on to ask for help supporting GNU financially: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s NOT Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed” (Stallman 1). This to me sounds confusing. If GNU is free software, than why is Stallman asking for money and equipment? I know it costs money to create software; however, I feel that Stallman should not have to come right out and say that he needs money and equipment to create GNU. If GNU is such a good idea, then the product should speak for itself. People would automatically want to invest in his product and he would not have to ask for the money. This is just my opinion.
In the film, Revolution OS, we saw the rise of some computer software companies that jumped on the bandwagon with the idea of GNU as free software. In addition to the rise of the computer software companies, some of them went out of business. Which makes you ask the question: is the idea of free software a really good idea? For the business that went out of business in the film I believe no. During the time that GNU was at its prime though, these companies made millions of dollars. So at the time GNU was a good idea. I guess the idea of free software is a hit or miss sort of thing. While it’s hot it’s hot and when it’s not it’s not.
Richard Stallman wrote the piece “The GNU Manifesto” and in it he clarifies the distinction between GNU not being UNIX. Then he goes on to ask for help supporting GNU financially: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s NOT Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed” (Stallman 1). This to me sounds confusing. If GNU is free software, than why is Stallman asking for money and equipment? I know it costs money to create software; however, I feel that Stallman should not have to come right out and say that he needs money and equipment to create GNU. If GNU is such a good idea, then the product should speak for itself. People would automatically want to invest in his product and he would not have to ask for the money. This is just my opinion.
In the film, Revolution OS, we saw the rise of some computer software companies that jumped on the bandwagon with the idea of GNU as free software. In addition to the rise of the computer software companies, some of them went out of business. Which makes you ask the question: is the idea of free software a really good idea? For the business that went out of business in the film I believe no. During the time that GNU was at its prime though, these companies made millions of dollars. So at the time GNU was a good idea. I guess the idea of free software is a hit or miss sort of thing. While it’s hot it’s hot and when it’s not it’s not.
Before I viewed the film Revolution OS and read the article “The GNU Manifesto” I had no idea that GNU was free software and what free software was about. I mean I heard of GNU before, but had no idea what is stood for. Now that I do know what GNU is and what free software is, does that mean that GNU is like some of the free download software such as LimeWire for instance? In society today the idea of something such as software being “free” or “shared” is looked down upon as something criminal and needs to be cracked down on. I believe this is the reason why so many GNU following software companies went out of business. Not to say that there are not any GNU software companies in existence today, but they are very few. Due to the constant changing in software it seems like every year, people have to constantly go out and re-buy software and this can become quite expensive. Maybe in the future, the solution for this will be making all software free and thus becoming the norm, but who’s to say. Just a thought.
Works Cited
Stallman, Richard. “The GNU Manifesto: GNU’s Not Unix-Free Software, Free Society.” 1985. 24 April 2007. <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html>. 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
