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?

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?

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?

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