ATLAS Speaker Series: Digital Media Design, Gender & Games

Digital Media Design, Gender & Games

This presentation was about women in the gaming and technology fields and showing how they are (under)represented. That was interesting to me because our MIT class is split pretty evenly between the genders, but the field as a whole is definitely male dominated. Yasmin Kafai, the speaker, posed the question, “do we need to design different technologies and games for girls?” She said that the reason girls aren’t playing video games as often as boys are is because lack of interest or lack of experience. Girls assume video games are a boys game, and therefore do not play. It was very eye opening to see a woman in the information technology sector explaining how girls are stereotyped against as video game consumers. She said that most video games are designed by men for men and that the only women characters are either passive (princess) or oversexualized. The typical video game directed at girls is “Barbie” where you get to dress her up and do her hair.  How are children ever supposed to challenge gender roles when this industry is feeding stereotypes into their hands? We need to move away from gender as difference to gender as performance. Even when they are young, girls are supposed to play with dolls and boys are supposed to play with cars. I loved the SNL skit about “Chess for Girls” mocking that the only way girls would play chess is if the pieces had cute outfits are hair. If a girl doesn’t feel the way a “typical” girl does with these feminine inclinations, she is instantly shunned. This goes beyond the technology field, but to socialization in our culture itself. Yasmin also talks about girls as video game developers, where females created wonderful, thought provoking games that encourage learning for either gender of children, not catered specifically to either. The speaker encourages everyone of all ages to be a video game creator! She even talks about kids who can do it, so I know I definitely could. I never considered it before because I also assume the stereotypical gaming industry as a place for boys and their toys where I am not welcome.

Remix Culture Questions (Group 1)

1. When I hear "Remix Culture," I immediately think of the discussion we had in class last week about "Girl Talk" and how the deejay takes others songs and remixes them into his own. Remix culture could also be a culture where no content is original anymore, that everything (every sound, idea, logo, shape...) came from somewhere else first. This is definitely apparent in music and films, where I feel like I keep seeing the same story/chorus over and over again. How many remakes of classic movies and songs do we have to hear and see? That leads the question of is the remake even considered original work or will it always just be a remake? I assume this means that anyone is a producer and anyone is a consumer in our culture.

2. The biggest consequence of remix culture is that nothing is original anymore. The remixers are "technically" stealing work of others but not getting in trouble for it... So is nothing protected? What about those copyright laws we fight so hard for? Are you only a thief if you steal a tangible good? Music is created and lots of time is spent into making it so it should have the similar consequences.  Remix culture is even affecting innovation. If people are scared to create because they do not think that they will get the proper money or recognition for their work, then our society stops moving forward completely. But aren't we all innovators? Isn't that how great things are created  by building on something and making it even better? Every good idea had to start somewhere, can we copyright and protect every single inspiration?

IPR, Copyright/ Left, CC Questions (Group 12)

http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf

1. When searching to make sure that no other trademarks are similar to the new proposal, what guidelines does the committee follow to make that decision? What justifies something being too similar or different?

I really like the line, "The progress and well-being of humanity rest on its capacity to create and invent new works in the areas of technology and culture..." This is an interesting perspective and I think it is so true. Without protection of ideas, no new products could ever be designed and created and without this creation, there would be no progress. The core idea of our society is to create and continue moving forward with new ideas and this can only happen with IPRs improving the quality of life. Nothing we take for granted such as movies and medicine, would exist without this system. Until this article, I had no idea how important this system really was.  I have this great idea for a new product, but clearly I can't post it online because someone will try to steal it and make it their own since it isn't patented. I like this though, because it protects from idea theft which can take away recognition or even money from the rightful owner. I also never thought about industrial designs being patented, I always assumed it was s free-for-all, so this was interesting news to me.

Digital Divide Questions (Group 11)

1. To me, the digital divide is the difference in knowledge and access in technology between classes. It is the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The poor people do not know how to use technology the way the rich do because they do not have access or the ability to ever learn.

2. This video was very interesting to me! It is amazing to me how different their society in India is compared to our lives in America. Parveen's village didn't even have electricity until six months ago, her mother left school at age eight, and she rides her bike to school; something that we Americans can't even fathom. I am confused as to why Parveen's school makes the children pay every month to use the computers. It is also surprising that a school of 500 has only three computers. I guess I take for granted how lucky I am to live in a society where every student has their own personal computer and houses have up to four per home. Not only is there a huge divide between U.S. and India, but even between villages in India. The digital divide is prominent everywhere throughout the world. If we work to close this knowledge gap, the world as a whole could be so much more educated and advanced.

Asides: Iran Cuts Off Google

While I understand Iran’s outrage for Google’s offensive video, I think that cutting off your entire country to Google and Gmail is unfair. Not only does that take away Iranian citizens access to countless of important websites and information, but it is taking away their rights of freedom. Iran censors the most of almost any other country. They censor sites like Facebook and Youtube already, and now even Google! The government already has extreme control in Iran, now they are taking complete control of the Internet and disconnecting from the World Wide Web. This seems totalitarian to me- like Big Brother can choose exactly what sites you go onto and is watching you the whole time… Iranians are losing their freedom. They are being cut off from the rest of the world, and there is nothing to be gained from this isolation. How are curious citizens supposed to know what is happening in the rest of the world? How will they know who they can trust if their information is all coming from one biased source? The Internet gives us freedom we have never experienced before, the possibilities of information we can discover are endless. Cutting off access to this information is sad, the citizens will never be able to know the immense knowledge out there, and they will never know anything but their own culture.  A simple feud with Google can be solved without hurting the citizens of the country. But it sounds like Iran has a lot more to worry about than Google since it got the Stuxnet virus. We learned about that in class and the worm can cause mass havoc to the computer or control systems.  Iran suspected it was US who planted the worm, naturally. I can’t say I am surprised though, they are a very paranoid country if they cut off all ties when one disaster happens. They are not only isolating their citizens, but isolating the country as a whole, which is a huge global mistake. 

Music & Technology Questions (Group 10)

I vaguely remember the days when I paid for music, at that time $0.99 for one song seemed absurd. CD's were verrryyyy expensive and treasured purchases. I have been illegally downloading music for years now. I switch from site to site since illegal music sites are clearly "illegal" and are often shut down. I like MP3Rocket and youtubetoMP3 as my personal favorites. I think our generation and the ones following us are past the point where paying for music is even an option, especially since it is so simple to get music illegally or just stream it on your computer. I don't think people realize the morally wrong nature of this act, since it is so common. For the music industry to thrive, they must do something more and different to attract the upcoming tech-savvy generations.

IT & War Questions (Group 9)

1.In general, describe the relationship between I.T. and war as it has existed throughout history and into the present: I never really thought of there being a big relationship between I.T. and war until this class actually, when we read the Vaneiver Bush article. The greater the technological advancements, the higher warfare technology we can employ on our enemies. I think it is a bit ridiculous that we are achieving so much technological greatness only to employ it for a one time use during a battle.

2. Consume the following material:

• Video: "The Military Invented the Internet: What Next?"
• Text: "War and Technology" 

Three Quotes:

1. "War is a driver for technology... everything from the Internet to jet engines to robotics are all things where military is a driver. This goes into question of human duality and human creativity."

2. "Maybe the question is that we can't get past our age old need to destroy each other. Is it machines that are wired for war or are we just inherently wired for war?"

3.  "But countless inventors and innovators, from Alfred Nobel to Robert Boyle, thought of weapons positively. They believed that they could banish the scourge of war, or at least restrain its excesses, if they could only invent the ultimate weapon, the instrument so horrible that no one would dare use it."

I assumed that weapons were only made in war for evil, and it was a negative thing to spend so much time, money and effort making our weapons more powerful. Now I realize, weapons can be made for good. They can be so powerful that nobody would dare use it, such as a nuclear bomb. We can't use that for fear of retaliation. I thought it was really interesting how closely related I.T. is with war, as seen in countless examples and circumstances. Humans are wired to create, but does that mean we are wired to destroy? I know it's the survival of the fittest with the human race, and being technologically smart makes you wartime smart as well. 

Virtual Reality Questions (Group 9)

My initial understanding of virtual realities is a place online where people create avatars and act out another life. I picture online Sims, or Second Life, or World of Warcraft type games. People use these games to escape their own reality and live in a virtual reality where they can achieve anything and be anything they wish.

Questions
1.) Do you think it's possible that people can be so consumed with their virtual reality that they eventually start to believe that is their actual reality? With all the advancements in gaming, I predict this situation could happen all the time.. Which could be very dangerous and unstable

2.) I think the philosophical question of "what is reality" is a very necessary one. What do you believe? Do you agree with Plato's ideal form, with Buadrillard's "hyperreality" with Kant's phenomena idea? Do you think there even exists a reality beyond what we physically can interact with?

3.) If we are interacting with a virtual world, are we ever truly engaged or interacting when we are interacting with an illusion, a virtual facade of something real?

Aside: Fears for Civil Liberties as Apple Patents Technology

I think it is absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional for someone to have the power to disable my smartphone. The new patent technology that Apple has released will give police officers or authority figures to remotely control smartphones. They claim that it is helpful because it could prevent against fraud, create more privacy, and control unstable situations; however, to me this looks like a Big Brother situation. America is a free country, and controlling something so personal and important to users such as their smart phones is a detrimental idea. People will grow to detest their superiors like some sort of cruel dictatorship where the people have no power. So much viral and groundbreaking media has come from footage shot on smartphones, such as the UC Davis police pepper spray attacks or even the Arab who got out of their car during a protest and was shot on the spot. Smartphones give anyone the ability to be a journalist or news reporter, and they give people the feeling that they are involved in making a difference and that their voice matters. Not only that, but this patent can take away phone-call abilities at certain times; who the heck would benefit from this? If the police had the power to shut down cell phone usage during the UC Davis protests, the world would never have had proof of the violence and unprofessional tactics used by the officers and they could still be in positions of power today. Smartphones give the user the world at their fingertips. With the push of a button, we are now more powerful than we ever have been before. Taking this away from users is not only a huge abuse of governmental power, but also takes away freedom, civil liberties, and rights that we Americans take for granted.  Nick Pickles said it best, 'It’s been a fact that modern phones are in reality tracking devices that let us make calls, but the idea that awkward citizens might find their phone shut down at the behest of a Government agency is a very worrying thought and not one that fits with democratic principles.” This patent goes against democracy as well as constitutional rights of freedom and I think it is a very unwise decision to implement this technology.

IT: Privacy and Security Questions (Group 6)

1.) What does the bank do with this private data after it's unnecessary or obsolete? How long can they keep it and/or who can they share this data with? Personally I am okay with the  banks knowing my privacy information or my IP address if that means that my money is safer, but I don't want anyone else having access to that sensitive data...

2.) Whoa, the transparency grenade makes private governmental information public to everyone... Is this really a good idea? Leaking governmental information makes it easier for citizens and activists to be involved and aware, but it also makes it easier for people plotting against the US to gain information they would use in a negative way. I think there is a reason that the government keeps certain information private, and certain information public and I think it should be kept that way.

3.) What does the government (or anyone who's formerly private information is becoming public) have to say about the transparency grenade?

Open Source & FLOSS Questions (Group 7)

1.) Stallman says that copyrights should be able to expire after some time, is this a good idea? Would this solve propriety problems with software?

2.) Source code is understood by human beings, not computers so does that mean when computing source code into machine code, humans will always have an important job? (this is reassuring with all the fear that machines are going to take over)

3.) Kristi Grisbi says that open source software is too risky and unpredictable compared to her own software system, do people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this situation? Otherwise why would people ever even consider using open source if their privacy is exposed?

4.)  Stallman is making money from requesting the source codes from companies and taking their business away from them.. is this even legal?

5.) Stallman says free software is "software that respects your freedom," what exactly does this mean? What defines freedom? Freedom for individuals or groups?

Virtual Communities Questions (Group 5)

Questions for our interview with Mr. Howard Rheingold:

1. How have virtual communities changed since you wrote your book in 1993? you

tell us we must arm ourselves with knowledge and that what happens next with the

internet is completely up to us...

2. You stated that face-to-face interactions are just as important as online

ones. Do you think that in our culture today we are getting to the point where

online interactions are taking the place to face-to-face? What do you think this

means for society?

3. You broached the question "instead of falling under the spell of a sales

pitch, or rejecting new technologies as instruments of illusion, we need to look

closely at new technologies and ask how they could help build stronger, more

humane communities — and how they might be obstacles to that goal.” Do you think

technologies have been able to do so in these past years?

4. A main point we got from your book is that virtual communities are only

virtual in location, but the effect they have on people is very real. would you

say this is still true today? could you make the claim that virtual communities

have in fact become real...?

5. You talked about the idea of web anonymity and the concept of being anyone

that you want to on the web. This is a growing concern nowadays with pedophiles,

liars as well as privacy protection.. do you have any tips on how people can

interact on virtual communities without compromising too much of their own

information? how can we be prepared to protect ourselves from people who are not

who they pretend to be?

6. You touched upon a lot of advantages and disadvantages of the virtual

communities in your book. What would you say are one of the most important

advantages and disadvantages of virtual communities nowadays?

7. What do you think is one of the best or most successful virtual communities

out there today? And why?

8. Do you think virtual communities today are affecting people in more of a

positive way or a negative way?

9. How the heck did you know 20 years ago that this all was going to happen? you

correctly predicted a lot of Internet issues, like service-for-privacy and the

rise of social networks

10. What do you think about facebook giving its users information to companies

for marketing purposes? How do you feel about that? Are you on Facebook yourself

or not?

11. 20 years ago you asked about the future of the internet.. Will it continue

to be largely free and defined by its users, or will government and big business

take control? can you answer this now?

Data Mining and Searching Questions (Group 4)

A Deep Dive into Facebook and Datalogix

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/deep-dive-facebook-and-datalogix-whats-actually-getting-shared-and-how-you-can-opt

1.) I know Facebook has a lot of advertisements on the side that say "click here", but what about when users don't use that direct link but still purchase something because of Facebook? How can we make a direct link or measure this?

2.) IS THIS LEGAL?! This is all extremely (what I thought to be) confidential information... It is scary how many things can be monitored that I do that I am completely and utterly unaware of. How am I supposed to feel safe now knowing I am being monitored even when I don't know what I am being monitored for?

3.) We have the constitutional right to privacy... So then why doesn't Datalogix ASK us before giving this information instead of making opting out the exception to the rule? PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE THIS IS HAPPENING, so how can they possibly know opting out is even an option?

Viral Media & Crowd Sourcing (Group 3)

http://www.neoscenes.net/teach/cu/2012_2/atls2000_mit/pdfs/Bilton-2010-Has_Viral_Gone_Viral.pdf

1.) How can we attribute Chatroulette's exponential growth to the usage of social network sites?

2.) If "the speedy clock of Internet time is running faster than ever," what does that mean for us in the future? What negative or positive things will change because of this?

3.) If everyone has the potential to deliver news at all times, how do we know who is  a trustworthy source? Will we even need newspapers and journalists in the future if everyone is technically a journalist from their smartphone?

Asides: Street Ghosts Project

Street Ghosts Project is an art project that took images from Google Maps of people walking their everyday routes, and printing off pixelized pictures of them and placing them where Google Street View found them. The website itself is really interesting because it is interactive and lets the viewer look at a map of the possible locations these “ghosts” were planted. It also lets you use Google Street View to find your own favorite ghost and suggest that their location be pixelized! In a way, the concept of this site is like stealing from a thief. The people photographed on Google did not give their consent to be there, so the artist did not use Google’s consent before using these same people to decorate the streets where they were filmed. Yes, the images on Google are copyrighted, but if they didn't seek the permission of their subjects, how can that be fair? What right does Google have over innocent peoples privacy? From up close, the pictures just look like blurry pixilations; but from afar, you can see characteristics and the shape of a real person. The artist also chose the pictures in the creepiest, most desolate and prime artistic locations for his work to add the emphasis that these people are ghosts or even victims of a war they didn't realize they were a part of. Using the spooky, ghostliness of the pictures, the artist emphasizes the fact that nothing is private and that people can be watched at any time or place. What a scary thought it is that walking down your street at home or on vacation, there is a picture of you at this location that anyone in the world can see. The author says, “By remixing and reusing this material, I artistically explore the boundaries of ownership and exposure of this publicly displayed, privately-held information about our personal lives.” This sentence perfectly sums up how nothing is really private anymore and our personal lives may not be so personal after all.

IT & Politics Questions (Group 2)

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/social_media/review.pdf

1.) The article talks about how things you post on Facebook can be seen on Twitter or other social networking sites, so couldn't we say that this is a bad thing? It is great that everyone can be so easily connected,  but isn't it also dangerous? These easy linkages could lead to people knowing way too much about your life, especially with the minimal privacy settings. Why are these risks not discussed? Do people not care that strangers can easily access their entire life?

2.) If social media can lead to protests and upheavals, is it possible that this all leads to violence? If one person gets an extremely radical idea and posts it socially, it can escalate into one big chaotic and violent ordeal since they have the support behind them...

3.) I have read a lot about the bans on certain websites and applications or programs in the Middle East, how are the people there coping being cut off from the world? Are they still able to communicate and access information with all the censorship occurring?

Readings from Week 8

1.) From http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/380
I find it really interesting that this blog was written in 2008, and even back then there was talk about what technological advancements could POSSIBLY come next?! I wonder what they would have though of the mass amounts of available data we have today.. Is it a good or bad thing how saturated and media-savvy we are all becoming? If everyone is capable of creating netart, does it lose its appeal?

2.) From http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/4835
I like the concept of filtering through our "spam-filled days", comparing the human body to a computer network... How do we know or decide which information to keep and which information to discard?

3.) From http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/4835
Given the definitions of digital art and net art, is there really a difference between the two? Aren't both art done on digital platforms?

Simulation and Gaming Questions (Group 13)

Timeline: The Future of Videogames

1.) What will become of society when/if the line between reality and augmented reality become blurred?

2.) How much of this article can we actually believe? I understand the points that are made and that there are facts to support their guesses for the future, but that's all they are: guesses. I remember when 2000 was the year we were "supposed" to have flying cars... So how much can we rely on these predictions?

3.) How will the way humans socialize with one another change? With the blending of reality and video games becoming the norm, will the human race still value social interactions as much?


Does Game Violence Make Teams Aggressive?

1.) Why is there so much focus on computer games instead of other platforms such as the internet, music or television in which kids are exposed to the same amount of violence?

2.) From my limited video game knowledge, I know there are other types of video games that are still "violent" (such as World of Warcraft) while the article focuses on more extreme games like Call of Duty... Can researchers really make the distinction or could it just be that ALL video games create this similar arousal in the brain?

3.) Just because certain areas in the brain are more active or aroused than others at times, does that necessarily mean that the gamer will have violent tendencies? Are these arousals merely temporary?

My Personal Network

I am truly astounded by the amount of time during the day in which I am consuming media. From the second I wake up in the morning until the second I go to sleep, I am using media. My iPhone alarm wakes me up, and after that I immediately check the weather app and my text messages. I then go to class, and instead of wearing a watch to see if I am on time I always check my phone. When I had to go to a meeting at an unfamiliar campus building, I plugged it into the map app and am guided step by step to my destination. After all this technology at school, I then go to work where it is my sole job to work on the computer. I do everything from entering data to making copies to researching academia, and my eyes are sore by the end of the day from the glare of technology. I haven’t even mentioned how many times throughout the day I am checking Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook for live information or entertainment during my five minutes of free time. I find myself so easily distracted from everyday tasks and craving to check my phone for new information inputs from friends. I can’t remember the last time I sat and just twiddled my thumbs, any down time I have is spent on technology in some way or another!

 So much of my attention is focused where it shouldn't be, honestly. Before starting my homework, I sometimes check Facebook for a “little bit.” That little bit then turns into hours from click to click my attention is being drawn from pictures to funny videos to stalking someone all the way back to 2008. I think it is sad how consumed I am by technology, but I feel that there is nothing I can do to stop it. In such a technology-centered society, not having a cell phone or instant access to the rest of the world is unheard of. Why is it SO important for me to be texting my friend I saw an hour ago about the kid in my class’s weird hairdo? I am so wired it scares me.

It is unreal to think about how truly dependent I am without technology. Without a simple cell phone, I wouldn’t wake up in the morning, keep myself entertained, or know what time it was. With an iPhone, the world is literally at my fingertips. I can get an app for any and every thing imaginable. There are apps for ordering food, paying your parking meter, keeping track of bank accounts and so much more. I don’t even have to use my hands anymore, I can just yell at Siri to get me any information I desire.

Asides: Twitter Use 2012

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Twitter-Use-2012/Findings.aspx

As a personal Twitter aficionado, I am surprised at the low number of Twitter users! The statistics say that only 15% of adults use Twitter with only 8% using it daily. My mom asked me the other day if she was “out of the loop” since she doesn’t have an account. And the truth is yes, she is out of the loop! Twitter is not just a social media site. Twitter is where I get all the breaking news, gossip, get to see pictures of my friends as well as celebrities,  I get to follow famous people who inspire me and read their firsthand thoughts, politicians to learn about their standpoints, my favorite brands to get deals, and so so much more. Social media networking is becoming so necessary in business and society nowadays, it’s almost unheard of not to have a Facebook or Twitter account. The article says that the most popular demographic users are African Americans, young adults, and urban and suburban residents. It’s clear that rural people who aren’t as attached with society wouldn’t have the extreme urge to be connected and informed all the time like urban residents. Young adults probably use Twitter more because they are tech-savvy as well as interested in learning and being informed about society as much as possible. Both men and women use Twitter equally, similar to other social network sites. I think with or without all of the graphs, charts and statistics of who uses Twitter, the main focus is that social media sites are essential and people want to be up-to-date. The easy and quick access to information makes it almost impossible not to be informed. Take for instance, a football game. If I am curious to who won the game or what horrible calls were made, I will check my twitter feed before I check the news or ESPN or the newspaper. I can’t even imagine how people functioned without information in their immediate grasp. Our society thrives on instant gratification and won’t settle for anything less. With Twitter available on all smart phones, I predict its usage to rise immensely among people of all ages, races, social statuses, and education levels.

Readings From Week 6

The Temporary Autonomous Zone: The Net & The Web by Hakim Bey

1.) "The TAZ has a temporary but actual location in time and a temporary but actual location in space." He also mentions that the TAZ has a instantaneous and virtual place in the web. These lines confuse me. What does the author mean by this? Does the TAZ change over time and depending on where it is used? Then where is the actual TAZ? 

2.) Why is the Universal Control-system impossible? Is it because there needs to be chaos so there can be order? I find that interesting, then, that hackers and viruses and all the annoying road bumps on the web are actually necessary for its growth and continuance. 

3.) Of the two attitudes about technological internet advances "(1) what we might call the Fifth Estate/Neo-Paleolithic Post-Situ Ultra-Green position, which construes itself as a luddite argument against mediation and against the Net; and (2) the Cyberpunk utopianists, futuro-libertarians, Reality Hackers and their allies who see the Net as a step forward in evolution, and who assume that any possible ill effects of mediation can be overcome--at least, once we've liberated the means of production.".....which category do you/most people fall in? I wonder if the majority sees the internet in a positive or negative light.

Goldhaber, M.H., 1997. The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(3). 
1.) What does he mean by "economies are governed by what is scarce?" How can attention govern an economy? Does this relate to when you have someone's attention, you  have a sort of power over them?

2.) I really like that he asks us to question if  when he is speaking aloud we are paying attention to him, or his words, or his outfit, the people around us, or the setting... it makes me wonder when I am listening to a speech, what am I really paying attention to?

3.) If we are intrinsically wired to pay attention and crave attention, (as babies we cry when we need people to pay attention to us) why is it so dang hard for us to pay attention? Currently, I am reading this article, listening to music, writing on my blog, and texting all at the same time... Multitasking is like the opposite of attention and that is the main thing our society does today.. is the inability to pay attention as fully going to negatively affect the economy in the future?

Readings from Week 5

Coleman, G., 2012 The Ethics of digital direct action. Al Jazeera. 
1. I understand that "...chaos on the internet is unacceptable," but is being an activist or protester enough cause for an arrest? What about freedom of speech?

2.  If people are being arrested for creating "chaos" on the internet, does planning a protest online count as chaos? We have learned that technology and social media have been a huge part of new activist movements and this was a big leap forward in society... This article makes it seem like a bad thing instead of technological progress.

3. How is something that a hacker posts on the Internet a bigger threat than the slander we read EVERY DAY online? I am just confused on who is in trouble and who isn't.. The internet is already in chaos and people can write anything they want, we just have to hope people are intelligent enough to believe the truth. Why should this be any different when the anonymous groups are doing it versus people who do the same things but are brave enough to use their names?

Coleman, G., 2012. Our Weirdness is Free. May, (9). 
1. We live in such an active and changing time, why do activists and advocates choose to hide behind the anonymous name instead of their own? Especially with the mediocre reputation and long history sometimes associated with that name might not always shed positive light.

2. Why did Anonymous change from the prankster/"lulz" users to more serious and concerned activist users? 

3. I think it is very interesting and confusing that "Anonymous" was named Times' number 4 person of the year in the people's choice poll.. Did this happen because people relate to the anonymity that this name brings or because they respect their actions or what? 


Libicki, M., 2009. Cyberdeterence and Cyberwar. (Summary) 

1. If cyberattacks are only possible because systems have flaws, why do we continue to manufacture flawed computers? Why don't we use the same high-tech tools we use on governmental computers on everyday computers so everyone's data is safe?

2. I know we read in earlier articles that technology and cyberspace can be very unpredictable, so why are we choosing to put so much effort and focus on this aspect of warfare? (especially if the results are only temporary and short-term)

3. If "cyberattacks are cheap and cyberdefense is expensive" then shouldn't we always be on the offense and using this tactic often, since we expect no/minimal retaliation?

Answering Other's Questions Take 2

Questions from http://maggiestillatlas2000class.blogspot.com/

1.) Tools for Thought Chapter 1 and 2: 
When it states the difference between today's personal computers and tomorrow's intelligent devices will have less to do with their hardware than their software---- can you explain in more detail?
Hardware is a collection of physical components that make up a computer whereas software is the collection of computer programs that tell the computer how to operate. So I think what is being said here is that in the future hardware and the physical elements will be so much less important than the innovations in software that they're irrelevant. So much attention now is focused on the physicality and looks of the inner and outer computer design and that will all be obsolete compared to the software advancements yet to come. I am constantly in awe of the software updates on my iphone.Siri now reads my maps to me like a GPS and I can even book a flight on my phone... I can't even imagine what more updates there are going to be in the future. 

2.) The Political Power of Social Media
Explain the thought that the use of social media tools do not have a single preordained outcome?
I think what this means is that social media is an unpredictable tool in politics as well as everyday life. When posting something on a social website, you cannot predict how the audience will respond to it. It depends on the context or the experience of the reader and many other factors. That is what's scary about social media taking over so predominantly... especially since things we see on social media websites aren't always accurate. I remember reading crazy celebrity death rumors, people's crazy statuses from being hacked on Facebook, and many other stories that always make me question what is real or who to trust.

3. The Internet Revolution
What did they use before the mouse?
This is a question that I also was curious about! Since I did not know the answer, I looked it up. It turns out there was no need for a mouse with the original computers. Early computers were text based and only required a keyboard designed to handle computer code. The mouse we use today was invented by a man named Bill English in 1972. 

Asides: Are You A Psychopath If You Don't Have A Facebook Account? We Don't Think So

Seeing as I am in the age group most predominately active on Facebook, this article was very intriguing to me. I think that social media has created a new sense of loneliness we have never felt before and created this “fear of missing out.” My teacher had our class deactivate our Facebook accounts for one week. I thought it would be so easy, that a week was nothing; but after less than three days, I felt so disconnected from the world. It’s silly really, how we can live so close to one another or easily pick up the phone and call our close friends, yet without the constant ability to stalk their profile, we feel so out of the loop. Facebook can tell you everything about a person. The new “timeline” feature literally chronicles your birth to the present down to every friend you made on the exact date. By accepting a friend request, you are giving someone the ability to know every last detail of your life. Facebook stalking is so simple and people are so careless with the information they give out freely, strangers can know more about us than our friends do. I think not having a Facebook doesn’t make you abnormal; but one would genuinely miss out on important life events, moments, and pictures without it. Let’s be honest, nothing is official until it’s Facebook official. But on the other hand, social media websites like twitter and tumblr can be just as intrusive as Facebook. There are also settings on Facebook to make your profile a lot more limited and secure. Although I am a huge fan of Facebook, I do fear the effect it has had on my life. Every time I miss a party or a fun time with friends, seeing the evidence on Facebook makes it so much worse. Even though my profile says I have 800 friends, how many of them are my actual “friends?” And with 800 friends I sometimes feel lonelier than ever, just like Ashleigh Elser said. Facebook has the power to connect as well as disconnect relationships. I am addicted and dependent on Facebook, and that fact scares the living daylights out of me.

Readings from Week 4

Rheingold, H., 2000. Tools for Thought: the history and future of mind-expanding technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 4, 5, & 6
1.) Maybe it's just me and my inexperience and limited knowledge of computers, but if Johny von Neumann was as brilliant as this article claims, why is he not one of the most prominent names we learn of in the technology field? (Like we hear of Babbage or Turig) Even though he can't get exact credit neccesarily, I still feel he deserves to be mentioned.

2.) Von Neumann said " he regarded the computer as a technical device functioning as an extension of its user; it would lead to an aggrandizement of the human brain, and von Neumann wanted to push this aggrandizement as far and as fast as possible" do you think that his regard of the computer is true today? Is the computer merely an extension of the brain making us smarter or is it used as a substitute for thinking on our own and using everyday brainpower?

3.) Why is it that it is human nature to fall into a state of entropy? How can chaos, confusion, and things falling apart be a natural and easy instinct? I don't see much positivity in that.

Hacker, B.C., 1993. Engineering a New Order: Military Institutions, Technical Education, and the Rise of the Industrial State. Technology and Culture, 34(1).
1.) Without the invention of guns and gunpowder, what would wars be like today? Would the "art of war" be the same?

2.) I find it scary how much our society evolves based on military weapons... Is each country's dominance or advancements established by their military intel? I am sure that there are weapons and ballistics beyond even my wildest dreams that we have created.. Why does our society find it so important to stress military advancements over all other areas of life such as economics, politics or education?

3.) If "Innovations in 19th century military technology mostly came from nonmilitary sources" what are these sources the article is discussing?

O’Regan, G., Chapter 6 - The Internet Revolution. In A Brief History of Computing.
1.) I feel like everything we do in our society today comes from the internet. Whether it be networking, communicating, art, or research, the internet plays an insanely vital role in everyday life. Where would we be today without the internet? Has the internet substituted real face to face communication or real field research?

2.) Bush had a visionary information management system called "the memex," which he believed would be a memory extender. This goes back to my previous question above... Do we think the internet and use of technology has extended our memory and expanded our full potential or has it hindered it and took the place of real brainpower?

3.) This article is a bit confusing for someone who has absolutely NO computer/technology background and had to look up a lot of the terminology used. (ARPANET, NSFNET...what?!) For someone of my circumstances, is there an easier or more simple article so I can understand the basics of information technology before I take a huge leap into these unknown territories?

Answering Other's Questions

Questions from http://atls2000-hannahtuell.blogspot.com/

Resisting Technology: Regaining a personal ecology - Ravi Agarwal 2003

1.) What would be this author's definition of technology?
I think in this article, the author defines technology as any tool that we humans use that does thinking or work for us. I think the author finds humans intelligent and capable of doing many things on our own that technology takes away from us. He believes that we as a race are becoming too dependent on technology and machines that are substituting for using our own brain power.

Architectures of Participation - John Hopkins 2007

2.) In the seventh paragraph, are we being told that through the personal pursuit of intentional isolation, the spirit triumphs?

I think that we are being told that intentional isolation is never the answer. He believes that is it essential to always be communicating and interacting with people so that your body and soul can be fulfilled. Without communication and the presence of others who provoke intriguing and stimulating thoughts, we can never be fully satisfied with our existence. 

Some Tentative Axioms of Communication - Watzlawick, Beavin, Jackson 1967

3.) Was this piece written with a differing view of schizophrenia than what is commonly accepted now? As far as I know and as far as those with schizophrenia whom I know, the disorder simply eliminates a persons consistent ability to communicate effectively. The disorder does not eliminate a schizophrenics participation in the realm of communication as a human being. 

I fully agree with this point. I was also very confused as to what the author was talking about with schizophrenics. I think it is not fair to stereotype a group of mentally ill people and say that they can never effectively communicate. Although they cannot necessarily communicate as easily as most people, that doesn't make them incompetent. That would mean that anyone with a learning disorder or speech impediment is incapable of communication, which is false. I even know as someone without a disorder that at times it is extremely hard to get your point across effectively. This is not because I am an ineffective communicator or am speaking to ineffective listeners, it could be because of our differing languages, experiences  backgrounds or whatnot on the cause of communication.

Readings from Week 3

Wiener, N., 1954. Cybernetics in History. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 
1.) The author implies that communication must be a message with a shared meaning, so then what is communication between people when the message is not completely interpreted?

2.) When communicating from "machine to machine" should we be concerned that we are letting machines do far too much of our thinking, learning, and communicating?

3.) What does this statement "In control  and  communication we  are  always fighting nature's tendency  to  degrade the  organized  and to  destroy  the  meaningful;  the  tendency,  as Gibbs has shown us, for entropy to increase." imply? That humans are not naturally meant to communnicate effectively?

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D., 1967. Some Tentative Axioms of Communication. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 
1.) What type of communication is most effective?

2.) The author said that even not communicating (denial, silence, withdrawal....) is a form of communication and so it is impossible for one not to communicate. I think this is an interesting point but are there any examples that prove otherwise?

3.) I feel like the root of many communication problems are the "I nag because you withdraw" and "I withdraw because you nag" interaction. These are both intrinsic and unchanging opinions, so how can his kind of negative interaction be avoided?

Readings from Week 2

Agarwal, R., 2003. Resisting Technology: Regaining a Personal Ecology. In the 2003 Sarai Reader. Delhi, India.

1.) How has technology negatively impacted people? Why do we continue to use technology that puts certain groups at risk or at a lower level of living? 

2) This leads to the greater question of: Does technology have more of a negative or positive influence on our society today? Is it helping or hurting in communities?

3) I think "And [technology] was not designed for the greater common good, but for a greater common market" is a very interesting comment... What does this mean?

4) Does technology solve needs or create them?

Hopkins, J., 2007. Architectures of Participation. Helsinki, Finland.

1.) Not quite a question but very valid and intriguing points to ponder on... "With this in mind (knowing that life is not infinite), how then do we choose how to  expend our life-times, our dwindling energy stores? Do we value every moment as we should?"

2.) The author is saying without human relations we cannot find our purpose... but I'm not sure I agree. Isn't it true a lot of people can find their purpose or meaning of life by looking at themselves internally? I agree social contact is important but I think introspection is just as important as being social in learning.

3.) In the battle between the spirit and body for a purposeful existence, why can't they both win? Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

Shirky, C., 2011. The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), pp.28–41.

1.) I see how social media has amazing benefits of connecting us to one another, but isn't it also bringing us further apart? Are text messages and emails replacing everyday conversations? If so, this is  big concern socially since everything we do in life relies on the ability to communicate with others successfully

2.) Is it fair that social media has such an impact on politics? Shouldn't politics be about cold, hard facts instead of who has a better Twitter manager or more creative internet ads?

3.) With all the chat rooms, customer review sites, and forums isn't it almost impossible to censor? People aren't accessing facts anymore but everyone's opinions and coming together... How is this a peril? People with similar interests are coming together and becoming empowered... only the government of oppressing countries should feel threatened, not USA

Readings from Week 1

Rheingold, H 2000. Tools for Thought: The History and Future of Mind-Expanding Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 1 &2.

1) If the medium is the message, what will it mean when the entire environment becomes the medium?

2) Since technology is always changing and improving, how can anyone ever be tech-savvy? How can we ever keep up with such constant change?

3) I can't even fathom a society or life in general without computers...but should we be concerned at how dependent we are becoming on technology as we think less for ourselves and let the machines do the work? How far are we willing to let this technology advance until the technology is controlling us, instead of vice versa?

Bush, V., 1945. As We May Think. The Atlantic, (July).
1) As specialization extends and expands, is our own knowledge of these subjects decreasing?