Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)