A Thousand Plateaus-Gille Deleuze and Félis Fuatarri

SUMMARY-

In the introduction to A Thousand Plateaus, Gille Deleuze and Félis Fuatarri use pseudonyms in describing the way human knowledge is spread through literature. They describe a book as a machine and literature as an assemblage, but not ideology (407). They say there is no difference in how a book is made and what it talks about. Writing is measured by units, which define writing as “the measure of something else” (408). They compare books to trees and their root systems, and also to the reproduction of roots. The way in which the books/roots multiple is compared with binary logic and biunivocal relationships. Starting with the first book as a classical book or the root-book or taproot and all other books stemming from here. With the classical book as the foundation, all of literature comes from here and is somehow a reflection of the book prior. They state, “the world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world” (409). This relates to how the book is made (time) and how it is reflected in the work. They end the article with this kind of system being compared to a rhizome. They say that a rhizome can be good, but also bad; and also, that it is not composed of units but rather of dimensions (“directions in motions”) that relate to change such as a metamorphosis. They continure to describe a rhizome as not only an antigenealogy, but also an antimemory.

INQUIRY-

The way in which Duleuse and Fruatarri use the rhizome metaphor at the end of the introduction helps show the development process in which humans communicate knowledge through literature. They start out by comparing literature (in the form of books) to the root system on a tree (408). The main root (taproot) is the first literature—classical writing. From there, books were written in response to books previously published. A system was created, but is continually growing. This corresponds to the non-stop publication of books and how after they are published they become outdated since there is no communication between the text and the reader. Finally, they use the rhizome to address the Internet. It cannot be measured by units since units are constant, but rather has to undergo a metamorphosis because the Internet allows for the media to be changed—this is why it is an antimemory. The functions the Internet has such as hypertext or social interaction can also be compared to a rhizome. These forms of new media allow not only for change, but also have very few limitations. When analyzed with books (roots), there is no comparison in the amount of options that the Internet (rhizomes) gives.

1. Do you agree with the way they present books, in which “a book exists only through the outside and on the outside” and “a book has neither object nor subject, but that it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds” (407).

2. Why do you think that they used the tree/root system and rhizome to compare literature? Can you think of a better/different example that would communicate the same ideas?

3. Through their arguments on the development of literature, what can you conclude about their thoughts on future forms of new media in relation to literature?

Continue Reading

Autistic Culture Online-Joyce Davidson

SUMMARY-

Autistic Culture Online by Joyce Davidson gives non-autistic people a better idea of how people on the Autistic Spectrum (AS) communicate and how the Internet has benefited its members. She uses autobiographies as examples to help the reader understand the life of an AS person. Davidson uses these examples to defend her idea that being autistic is a way of life that can be compared to any other minority group, rather than a disability (795). Like any other minority group, AS people often receive discrimination as a result of being commonly misunderstood (799). However, the AS has great diversity because it is composed of a wide spectrum of culture (800). AS people live with social norms and unwritten rules, as any other culture has. Davidson stresses how the Internet has changed the relationships amongst the people in the AS. One of the main characteristics of autistic people is a difficulty with communicating face-to-face. The Internet has given members of the AS not only a way to communicate naturally, but also a way in which they can meet new people, and function on “a level playing field with almost everyone else” (801). Because “autistic culture today is largely where deaf culture was a century ago,” it will take time before people on the AS are culturally accepted and new media is used on a larger scale in order to aid the AS.

INQUIRY-

I have never thought about the AS or what it would be like to live being autistic. I found this article to be very interesting and insightful on how our society views AS people. I agree with Davidson that the people in the AS do not have a disability, but are rather a part of a minority group. This article helped me better understand the AS community and the challenges that autistic people face; also, how they overcome these challenges. This article shows how new media is being used to help improve AS people’s lives. The Internet has given the world a fast way to communicate with others without direct contact. I believe that this new medium has not only benefited its users, but it has also created a new world for AS people in which the can communicate better; this has improve their lifestyle and have given them confidence to identify with being autistic.

1. Do you think that the communication acquired through the Internet for AS people would help them gain social skills/confidence to succeed or hinder their ability to communicate face-to-face as they rely to heavily on the Internet for communication?

2. Davidson states that “autistic culture today is largely where deaf culture was a century ago” (801) With this in mind, where do you think online autistic communities/new media will lead to in the future to improve the lives’ of AS people?

3. What was your response to this article? Did you have a bias against AS people and how did this article change (or not change) that? If you know someone that is autistic, what is it like communicating with him or her; and do you believe that the Internet is a better form of communication for an autistic person?

Continue Reading

"The Search Party: Google squares off with its Capitol Hill critics" - Ken Auletta

Summary: "The Search Party: Google squares off with its Capitol Hill critics" is an article by Ken Auletta, published in early 2008 in The New Yorker. In this article, Auletta discusses Google's new presence in the political arena to an audience curious about Google's growing influence. Although Google was a multi-billion dollar company for several years in the early 21st century, Google was never very politically active. It was not until Google's founders realized the potential harm that could be done to their company by not having political influence that they decided to establish a substantial Washington, D.C. office. Google's stated mission as a company is "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (1). The main problem with making "information" your company's main "product," is that other companies own most, if not all of that information, creating conflict. With Google's extension of their company beyond Search, they have caused alarm within several different industries. Many of these companies have called for an anti-trust case to be brought against Google, but no case has been substantiated thus far. Closely tied with Google's Search is their advertising: AdWords and AdSense. These extremely successful advertising efforts have allowed Google to nearly surpass the combined advertising revenues of the major television boradcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, & Fox). When Google wanted to acquire DoubleClick, an online advertising giant, anti-trust flags were waved, but eventually put down after Google successfully acquired this company in mid 2008 (a few months after this article was published) [Source]. Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, claims "the more Google knows about a user the better the search results" (4). Critics of Google worry that there is danger in a company that depends on advertising to collect so much data on consumers through their searches. In other words, many people worry about privacy issues with Google, but Google has taken steps to lessen the worry. Searches are stored on Google servers for 18 months (lessened from 24 months previously). The article claims that Google will need to manage itself as a company, deciding whether it will continue to get "you to what you want as fast as you can and getting out of the way ... or will it become 'a source of content, a platform, a destination?'” (5). Recently, Google has expressed interest in the cell phone market, but has yet to lead in this industry. Schmidt, in response to critics, argues that what "kills a company is not competition but arrogance. We control our fate” (7). Inquiry: Google is a company that is trying to take over the world, and they seem to be succeeding. It is hard to name a new media industry or market that Google does not influence. It is interesting comparing Google's image to other companies such as Microsoft. Microsoft, a technology company, states that its mission " is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential" [Source]. This mission does not sound much different from Google's mission, but yet Google is nearly revered as a company while Microsoft is just trying not to be hated. I would argue that Google is looked at differently by consumers because their products are generally viewed as free. From my personal experience, many people cite the high cost of software as a reason for their dislike of Microsoft. When you have a company like Google that is giving equivalent resources that are perceived as free, "free" will always win (in a popularity contest at least). Consumers would prefer to "pay" for software by the searches they perform and ads they see instead of a direct monetary transaction. Google's value lies most in what it is able to discern about its users. As the recent Google Super Bowl commercial displayed, our searches tell a story: Many consumers worry that this knowledge could be used in negative ways, but others point to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil," and trust that Google will not misuse this information. This trust is vital for Google's success as a company. Without consumer trust, Google will have nothing. This information that they gather is very valuable when speaking about advertising. As an example, Facebook has been valued at nearly $11 billion dollars, not because of its great success at turning a profit, but because investors know that information Facebook users put on their profiles is an advertiser's dream come true. Facebook, as well as Google, are able to use information about users to create targeted ads, making them more valuable to potential advertisers. Questions:

• Google is thriving in this new media world without an end in sight. Do you foresee a point in the future when Google will reach a "breaking point" because of their involvement in such a wide variety of industries? Or, does this scattered involvement ensure their success as a financially stable company for the future?

• Many consumers worry about the information that Google collects. Do you believe this worry is validated?

• Google is currently an 11 year old company, but yet their earnings rival the GDP of small nations. What do you believe made Google such a successful company in such a short amount of time?

Continue Reading

The Hacker Manifesto

Summary The Hacker Manifesto is a piece written by Adam L. Beberg, who's information can be found by clicking on the small icon at the bottom of the manifesto. an example of our old topic of hypertext. This piece attempts to explain what a hacker really is by providing definitions of a hacker through hypertext (the word 'hacker'). Beberg enlightens the world, so to speak, on the mindset of a hacker, and how society has come to look down upon such people. Beberg seems to think that the world is quite misguieded about hackers, and attempts to straighten out people's view of them through his manifesto, and through hypertext links to his personal career in academia and professional life. Inquiry This work is by far one of my favorites of the year. It was fun to read, and very interesting. I, myself, have a view of hackers as the "scum" of the internet out there, out there to steal information and gain an edge illegally. Beberg seems to have set me a little straighter. Dictionary.com even defines a hacker as "a computer enthusiast" (dictionary.reference.com/browse/hacker). By viewing hackers in this way, I think we can better understand a social circle that exists, often right under our noses, in the world today. People like Richard Stallman could be considered hackers, as defined by Beberg and by dictionary.com. It seems that there is an entire world of hackers out there who consider themselves the elite of programming and computer knowledge. I find this fascinating, and would love to do more research on this topic. I think that the links Beberg has in his manifesto to his own personal information, including his resume, add to the credibility of this article, giving a so called face to the name type of effect. I think it's important more hackers attempt to convey to the world their true nature so that we may better understand their point of view, and what they seem to truly be about. I commend Beberg for his work, and again would love to see more like this. 1) What was your view of "hackers" before you read this manifesto? 2) Can hackers make a better name for themselves by creating more works such as Beberg has done? 3) Do hackers have a place in society, or will they forever be viewed as criminals by those that don't understand them?

Continue Reading

Stallman, "The GNU Manifesto"

Summary In his article, "The GNU Manifesto", Richard Stallman makes the argument in favor of free software. By free software, he means software that doesn't need to be copyrighted or that people don't need "permission to use" (550). He explains that his intent by saying free software was not to be interpreted as "copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge" (550). Later in the manifesto he explains ways to make a profit by providing the service of distribution, and that the important thing is that everyone who has a copy of the software be free to cooperate with other users of this software (550). Over the course of the article, Stallman intends to reach fellow prgrammers by discounting claims against, or questions discounting, the value of programming software for little monetary reward. By citing that programming of this sort will add to the knowledge base of society, the creativity of society, and will not block progression as a result, Stallman makes the argument for a revolution against copyrights and licensure, and for freedom to do as you wish with software. As the creator of a free software system, GNU, Stallman stakes his claim to be able to have the freedom to improve and share this software with other users. He desires to be able to change the software he's using to better fit his needs, and feels that other users and programmers should also have this freedom. Inquiry Stallman's claims are borderline ludicrous. The idea of programmers forgoing profit to better society makes no sense in the world we live in today. For example, in congress today there is the idea of levying energy taxes on large corporations for polluting our environment. While I support this tax, and while this tax would absolutely benefit society by reducing pollution, in no way shape or form are corporations going to agree willingly to pay more money for production than they have to. Stallman discounts the argument of monetary reward saying there can be rewards in other forms, such as creativity and even fame. For this I applaud him, as I quietly laugh at his ludicrous proposition to take money away from people who work for it. I see no value to anyone from taking away their right to have their work become lawfully owned by them through a copyright or licensure agreement. I don't see monopolistic corporations, such as Microsoft, ever be willing to implement "free" software in their realm of work, and finally I don't see how his idea of "free software" is even really free. Levying a tax on the software buyers to compensate for lost profits, charging for services to teach and assist with software, etc. These are all forms of a not very "free" environment. Futhermore, to address the issue of free as the ability to share with users: The best programmers work for the best companies, and DO use feedback to improve their products. Anyone can post comments on the internet on ways to improve the software, albeit in often cases they can run into legal issues. To me, Stallman just wants the ability to legally change things to better suit him, not necessarily to better suit society. The free market works to better society by giving those who create the best product, the best reward, and in today's world that reward is in the form of monetary compensation. I see no reason to change the way this operates, nor do I see this change ever happening. I believe that social gain can come from the system that is currently in use now by way of giving the best people the best reward for creating the best product, and I think it is necessary for them to work very hard to be the best. As our constitution states, the people have the right to property. That property includes that which is in their head, and not just where their residence is built, and to take away the right to this property is to take away a fundamental right and principal that this country was built on. 1) What do you think of Stallman's proposition of "free" software, and what does "free" mean to you? 2) Should copyright and license agreements on software be eliminated? 3) How would society as a whole benefit from the "free" software that Stallman describes?

Continue Reading

The Cave

Summary The visit to the virtual reality lab was nothing like I what I had expected. I thought it would be more along the lines of the general 3D quality you find in theaters with the basic glasses and I did not realize that such a level of interactivity was possible. I was surprised by the amount of control the person with the joystick and head-tracking goggles had and it was amusing to see the predictable head jerks as objects got closer to everyone’s faces because the experience felt so real. The mapping world with the pottery was undoubtedly the most relevant to the class and I wish we had the time to create our map in the lab. It is unfortunate that the ceiling was not a part of it and that they did not have a back wall but hopefully that is something that can be developed in the future. Inquiry It will be interesting to see how the technology in the virtual reality lab will be applied in the future. To me it seems that it would be particularly useful with the military and schools because the military can train their soldiers without putting them in actual danger and making sure they are qualified and well-prepared, while schools, especially med schools, can recreate the human body or anything they need. I would love to see that technology applied to video games because as immersed as a player gets when they are playing even a simple game like Super Mario on the Nintendo, it would be amazing to play Halo or COD in 3D. The issue with relying so heavily on virtual reality would be that people could become disconnected with reality and there would be even less interactions between people. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how such technology is being used a few years from now. 1. How was your experience in The Cave and what was the most/least appealing thing to you? 2. Where do you see this technology being used a few years from now? 3. Do you think this technology will become even more mainstream in the future and if so, how long do you think it will take for this to happen? 4. What would be some issues with spreading the use of virtual reality?

Continue Reading

Response Is The Medium

Summary

Krueger argues against the belief that man-machine interaction is limited to a man poking at a machine and provides evidence that supports his claim that there are ways that are more interesting for men and machines to relate. He argues that there is such a thing as responsive environments which break away from the “seated man poking at a machine with his fingers or perhaps waving a wand over a data tablet” (379). He depicts the evolution from its beginnings in 1969 to his current project, VIDEOPLACE.

He starts by describing the technology that was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GLOWFLOW, created in 1969, was visually successful but obtained a hesitant response because the artist believed it was more important that the environment respond. METAPLAY, exhibited a year later, focused on the issues with GLOWFLOW and the interaction between the environment and the individual was emphasized. PSYCHIC SPACE was used for the musical expression as well as the interactive experience and Maze also focused on the interaction between the participant and the environment. All paved the way for the integration of humans into a responsive environment. His own project, VIDEOPLACE, is conceptual and unites people in different locations within a common visual experience.

One of Krueger’s main points is that the response is the medium. He claims that the “video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways, than reality itself” (384). He describes the importance of responsive environments and risks criticism from those who believe the response is not as important as the visual appeal. He argues that the “distinguishing aspect of medium is…the fact that it responds to the viewer in an interesting way” (385) so it must know what the participant is doing and has to be able to respond to the participant. He ends his argument by stating that the responsive environment is not limited to the arts. It can be applied in education, offering students an engaging environment where they will be more eager to learn, psychology to study human behavior, and psychotherapy because certain environments can evoke and expand behavior. His concluding statement is that the “design of such intimate technology is an aesthetic issue as much as an engineering one” (389) and we have to recognize this in order to understand what we have created.

Inquiry

After visiting the reality lab, I fully agree with Krueger’s argument. It took me a while to grasp onto the notion that the response was the medium but after reading the various applications he described I was able to understand and thus form a decision on whether or not I agreed with him. I believe fully responsive environments are the future and we are well on our way to creating such technology. The example that I could visualize the most was using it for psychotherapy. It could be used to enable people to get over their fears and it can create seemingly hostile environments without the dangers of real life. It seems that responsive environments are already making their way into people’s homes and in it probably won’t be long before every home has some sort of illustration of this.

An example of the response as the medium is the virtual reality lab. The participant controls their surroundings with the joystick that responds to movement much like the Wii remotes do. They are able to navigate around the platform and when wearing the lenses that control the movements they are able to walk into different areas of the virtual reality, such as looking through the parts of the heart and seeing the other areas. It is all about the environment responding to the movements of the individual and the individual being able to control what happens.

1. Do you believe that someday we will be completely dependent on responsive environments and what are the dangers if that happens?
2. Do you agree with Krueger that the response is the medium or do you believe that something else is the medium?
3. How else can virtual reality be used? Do the pros of a responsive environment outweigh the cons?

Continue Reading