It's always nice when the author scares you on looking back on how reliant we really are on something simple like electricity. " The life blood of the economy" was probably an understatement now that we're so dependant on such a simple commodity.
I enjoyed his example of the power lines and the failure that occurred and almost seemed like a domino affect which targeted millions of people.I wasn't too sure on where he was going with this issue other than he was trying to prove the interconnectedness of a network and how one action can really put at risk many others. The way he wrapped it up on how such a catastrophe could happen was that by installing protective relays the designers had inadvertently made the system," as a whole" which was more likely to fail the way it did. A system like this could be orderly, chaotic, and it really has an unpredictable factor to it but I think the size of this network and creating it to a "whole" would explain how the power is distributed now-a-days. My charter services were out, cable and Internet, on the south side of town but when I called my friend on the north side they had all the charter services. This doesn't necessarily mean that the interconnectedness or the strength of the network between the characters in the community has been weakened but they are better protected then what happened in the New York and on the West Coast. On the other hand this is another way to look at it. To isolate certain networks so that it won't affect others could have a negative affect. Take New Orleans for example. This disaster hit one of the poorest cities in the United States but because of the certain isolation and interdependence the city does not really affect the nation as a whole and the action to repair the city is a lot slower if it were to be interconnected as a "whole".
Duncan sets his argument for his research with a question saying,"How does individual behavior aggregate to collective behavior?" He recognizes that systems and networks are far more complex then trying to create a graph to get a simple answer. The interactions between the characters are hard to predict because we're using so many factors where it seems almost unlimited on the reactions that can occur. Although there are all these reactions Watts does find certain patters and it's these patterns that happen between individuals in a large system that he's trying to get a more accurate overlook. A sociologist approach is so much different then the mathematicians and other fields because they keep in mind the individuals behavior, institutional incentive, and cultural norm. This seems to me just too much to get a hold of and the whole concept of "six degrees". Although Watts disagrees that this can be accurate and that it is far too simplistic. I see it hard, and he mentions this earlier in his article, on how you can grasp a common dynamic for the patterns of individuals within a network and have a basic application to all. We don't drink tea and watch soccer tournaments and we don't live in the rain forest so would it be only American culture that he would be trying to set a certain formula for? And our nation is quite complex in its own.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Talk about a hard read@!
Katherine Hayles has a way approaching this new technologically driven era that can’t be denied its role in today’s literature. Her argument stands at, “ the physical form of the literary artifact always affects what the words ( and other semiotic components) mean.” So how do we begin to decipher this argument? Her main components of her arguments lie with hypertexts, cyber texts, and techno texts.
Hypertexts are texts that are very link driven and non-linear. It was interesting to see the encyclopedia as a hyper text because one would quickly draw an assumption that an encyclopedia is too primitive to fit such a category but she dissects the term really well and shows us that literature we see on our computer screens are not the only examples that fit her approach but that literature, more now then ever, is really being put under scrutiny and analyzed a little closer but through different means, call it a different lens if you must.
W.J.T. Mitchell, which she recognizes as a very respected critic, states that literature can go only as far as image and text which he terms at “textimage”. This is where she is quick to respond with her own term of cybertexts. This term acknowledges, as well it should: images, sounds, animation, motion, and not just the text. This is a hard concept to wrap your thoughts around because how can sound, motion and animation have anything to do with literature? Well one of the ways I think she supports this is through the example of “Lexia to Perplexia”. All these other factors are really important in our navigation of literature when we surf the web. Think about the sound your computer makes when you’re trying to do a certain function but it won’t let you until you close the window you were using before. We automatically know what to do and we figure out how to continue and seek whatever literature or information we were seeking. All these features she points out are enveloped in our approach to literature through the technology that we are currently using. This interaction Is playing with her third term of technotexts. Technotext refers to the connection between material properties and its content. It’s made more visible, it’s emphasized and there is more information and demand for interaction instead of just randomly surfing through.
Her literary criticism is very well argued but I still wonder if this breakdown really gives us more clarity on the ever evolving styles of literature and the influence that the "machine" is having on it. "Lexia to Perplexia" just reflected how confusing it was for people who don't use a computer and have no idea how to use one must feel. Soon enough within the next generation that will be a rarity. I praise her approach but I'm not really sure if this criticism has any applicability or awareness.
Hypertexts are texts that are very link driven and non-linear. It was interesting to see the encyclopedia as a hyper text because one would quickly draw an assumption that an encyclopedia is too primitive to fit such a category but she dissects the term really well and shows us that literature we see on our computer screens are not the only examples that fit her approach but that literature, more now then ever, is really being put under scrutiny and analyzed a little closer but through different means, call it a different lens if you must.
W.J.T. Mitchell, which she recognizes as a very respected critic, states that literature can go only as far as image and text which he terms at “textimage”. This is where she is quick to respond with her own term of cybertexts. This term acknowledges, as well it should: images, sounds, animation, motion, and not just the text. This is a hard concept to wrap your thoughts around because how can sound, motion and animation have anything to do with literature? Well one of the ways I think she supports this is through the example of “Lexia to Perplexia”. All these other factors are really important in our navigation of literature when we surf the web. Think about the sound your computer makes when you’re trying to do a certain function but it won’t let you until you close the window you were using before. We automatically know what to do and we figure out how to continue and seek whatever literature or information we were seeking. All these features she points out are enveloped in our approach to literature through the technology that we are currently using. This interaction Is playing with her third term of technotexts. Technotext refers to the connection between material properties and its content. It’s made more visible, it’s emphasized and there is more information and demand for interaction instead of just randomly surfing through.
Her literary criticism is very well argued but I still wonder if this breakdown really gives us more clarity on the ever evolving styles of literature and the influence that the "machine" is having on it. "Lexia to Perplexia" just reflected how confusing it was for people who don't use a computer and have no idea how to use one must feel. Soon enough within the next generation that will be a rarity. I praise her approach but I'm not really sure if this criticism has any applicability or awareness.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hot and Cold
The Medium Is The Message/ Media Hot And Cold
Marshall McLuhan made really good points throughout his article on stating that “the machine”, or technology as we can call it today, was fragmentary and superficial in its patterning of human relationships. His awareness of social interference and consequence with such an accelerated process is not too far off.
He uses as examples certain intellectuals that would say that “modern science us not in itself good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” This seems like a careful political answer. McLuhan does not agree with a statement that doesn’t really say anything. This is a statement we hear frequently to avoid conflict which avoids productive dialogue, which he says in his second article is a very useful mode of “ cold media”. This dialogue and trying to understand this new science and technology is a misfortunate task that we can’t exercise quick enough to keep up with it thus leaving us with little resistance according to McLuhan.
In “The Medium Is The Message”, I think one of his most important points was acknowledging that, “technological media are staples or natural resources, exactly as are coal and cotton and oil.” Having this awareness at that time was advanced for his period and he had a very good grasp of where technology was going. The main point on that the content of any medium is always another medium was something that was not too well explained and only made sense parallel to a concept of remediation.
His “Media Hot and Cold” article was interesting at differentiating what was considered a low participatory media, well filled with data, with high definition. Cold media, was media that was the complete opposite as far as being something that you are more active in and the audience is more involved. I can see the importance of separating these differences and he made a point on saying that a society used to a certain type of media being introduced to another can be problematic. He used native people as an example and I can see this as a social issue. Does this mean that the more under developed countries should not be introduced to such media and technology. He is approaching indigenous, tribal, people but when it comes to approaching lower socio-economic societies this approach could be problematic. The most enlightening statement in this article which I agree with greatly but probably too idealistic was his reference to Margaret Mead where she said, “ There is great advantage in moving fast if you move completely, if social, educational, and recreational changes keep pace.” It is exactly this that I think McLuhan has a problem with saying that we have not been able to do this and this is what he’s arguing for.
Marshall McLuhan made really good points throughout his article on stating that “the machine”, or technology as we can call it today, was fragmentary and superficial in its patterning of human relationships. His awareness of social interference and consequence with such an accelerated process is not too far off.
He uses as examples certain intellectuals that would say that “modern science us not in itself good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” This seems like a careful political answer. McLuhan does not agree with a statement that doesn’t really say anything. This is a statement we hear frequently to avoid conflict which avoids productive dialogue, which he says in his second article is a very useful mode of “ cold media”. This dialogue and trying to understand this new science and technology is a misfortunate task that we can’t exercise quick enough to keep up with it thus leaving us with little resistance according to McLuhan.
In “The Medium Is The Message”, I think one of his most important points was acknowledging that, “technological media are staples or natural resources, exactly as are coal and cotton and oil.” Having this awareness at that time was advanced for his period and he had a very good grasp of where technology was going. The main point on that the content of any medium is always another medium was something that was not too well explained and only made sense parallel to a concept of remediation.
His “Media Hot and Cold” article was interesting at differentiating what was considered a low participatory media, well filled with data, with high definition. Cold media, was media that was the complete opposite as far as being something that you are more active in and the audience is more involved. I can see the importance of separating these differences and he made a point on saying that a society used to a certain type of media being introduced to another can be problematic. He used native people as an example and I can see this as a social issue. Does this mean that the more under developed countries should not be introduced to such media and technology. He is approaching indigenous, tribal, people but when it comes to approaching lower socio-economic societies this approach could be problematic. The most enlightening statement in this article which I agree with greatly but probably too idealistic was his reference to Margaret Mead where she said, “ There is great advantage in moving fast if you move completely, if social, educational, and recreational changes keep pace.” It is exactly this that I think McLuhan has a problem with saying that we have not been able to do this and this is what he’s arguing for.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Writing collage
Can you exterapolate from this page at least five things that annoy Yoz Grahame? When you think you've figured out five or more, Click here and let him know!!!
As we take a cyberstep ferwerd intothe new millinium, we arefaced with a timelike none other. The Infermation Inforstructure of theonline elite, or digerati,has come to envelope the common man who can know lookforword to the same sort of bleeding edge technojounalismthat the online content producer has enjoyed for at least a few months.
What does all this mean? In the word of Howard Rheingold, ""What it is, is up to us."
this site powered by Macuum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
