Optimism for Technology

In his book, being digital, Nicholas Negroponte discusses how technology affects the world around us, particularly our daily lives. Throughout the book, Negroponte predicts how he views different media and technologies will develop in the future and continue to change our lives for the better.

After reading the chapters and doing some research on who Negroponte is and what his background entails, I found that whether or not any of his predictions from being digital came true, he still believes in the work he has done and where the world is heading in his mind. An example of this is his non-profit organization One Laptop per Child, which he founded in 2005. The organization aims to give children in poor and underdeveloped countries the opportunity of using a computer where they can learn just as children in the United States do. Negroponte believes that this will help eliminate poverty around the world and that every child will grow and learn equally, with the same opportunities.

It is very clear from his work that Negroponte's view of a digital world is optimistic. As he writes in the epilogue of being digital, "the digital age cannot be denied or stopped. It has four very powerful qualities that will result in its ultimate triumph: decentralizing, globalizing, harmonizing and empowering" (229). This notion that Negroponte ends with in his book is the basis of the One Laptop per Child organization. By giving children equality in the digital world, the organization is breaking down barriers between countries and providing common grounds for future generations to empower themselves through technology.

A clip from the Colbert Report shows Negroponte discussing One Laptop per Child and how it is going to connect people around the world:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/363111/october-25-2010/nicholas-negroponte

One Laptop per Child website:

http://one.laptop.org/

Niche Television Channels

While reading Nicholas Negroponte’s “Being Digital,” I thought Chapter 13; “The Post-Information Age” was the most interesting section because it discussed a lot of things that our generation has experienced. He talks about narrowcasting which caters to small demographic groups, geography and its lack or absence of limitations, asynchronous communication, and On Demand. At first, I thought I would want to write about On Demand because I use it all the time and know a lot about it, but I decided to focus on narrowcasting because I think Negroponte could have gone more in depth on this topic.

Negroponte defines narrowcasting accurately and talks about how information becomes extremely personalized, but I don’t think he gives enough examples. He mentions niche magazines as one example of narrowcasting, and the ones that immediately pop into my head are Wired, Vanity Fair, Men’s Health and Women’s Health, and National Geographic Traveler. However, I think people of our generation would be more familiar with niche television stations like MTV, VH1, BET, Sci-Fi Channel, Animal Planet, History Channel, Discovery, TruTv, Cartoon Network, NBA TV, etc. These channels have easier access to people like us because all we have to do is sit down in our family rooms, turn on the television, go to the guide, and find a “niche channel” that we are interested in and begin watching a specific program of our choice. Magazines are still popular today, but they are not available with the click of a button and many people don’t like reading which makes watching television so much more enjoyable. Personally, one of my favorite channels is NBA TV because it focuses on NBA games, highlights, news, and interviews which are very appealing to me. ESPN, on the other hand, incorporates sports such as tennis, hockey, women’s basketball, and the X-Games that I do not have much interest in. In the end, Negroponte should have discussed niche television channels because everyone watches them and they are much more popular than niche magazines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/5108980.stm

Evolving Technologies

The telegraph, electrification, telephone, and radio are all technological advancements that redefined communication. Vincent Mosco’s “When Old Myths Were New: The Ever Ending Story,” describes that the introduction of each innovation brought much anticipation and high expectations-all revolving around the ability to unite people from across the nation. However, each technological innovation was soon surpassed by the next advancement. Mosco states when a new communication advancement is introduced, the ‘older’ versions simply fade away. People eventually forget the importance of each new development and their high expectations of cultural unity shift from one communication platform to the next. History now reveals that people may have over anticipated the capabilities of these technologies and a utopia has yet to be discovered. These same expectations are being applied to the internet today. But has society truly forgotten what advancements have led us to the development of the internet? When the next new wave of communication is introduced, will the same expectations be anticipated yet again?

I feel people will never truly forget the communication technologies of the past because each was uniquely monumental and created a new form of communication. In order for technology to advance, I feel it must build on past developments. The telegraph, electrification, telephone, and radio did not fade away --but evolved into a form of communication. The telephone and radio are prime examples of how technology builds on its creations—and not ceasing further development a product because it already served a specific function. The telephone-and its uses- have come a long way since its introduction. As household cordless phones made the shift to hand held cell phones with web surfing capabilities, the telephone incorporated the internet and did not fade away. The radio has also reached new platforms thanks to internet and satellite advancements. Listening to the radio has never been more available to users—with the internet and cell phones and a completely new ‘XM’ channel that entices many listeners with less advertisements than traditional radio. Each of these technologies proves that innovations that forever change the way of communication do not fade away, but evolve.

Technological evolution has rapidly made the transition to cars. Developments over the years have made cars more luxurious and safe. Now Google is in the process of transforming cars into vehicles that can drive themselves. This serves as another example of technology building and advancing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html

Historical Pragmatism and the Internet

Referring to the Historical Pragmatism and the Internet article I thought it very interesting and made me think about technology in a way I haven’t before. I believe James Carey makes some valid points but over exaggerates at some ideas throughout the article.

It is interesting how he points how technological advancements in the past have led to destructions and negative impacts elsewhere. I agree how most good things come along with bad as well. Though he expresses his faults with the technology and internet he never really went to full detail with what the consequences of the internet are and will be. Could have mentioned how society is controlled and tracked with no privacy anymore.

As he titles and focuses his article around the term Pragmatic, I don’t think that would be the best way to describe the impact of the internet. I understood the WWI major cause was the globalization with the impact of the new technology playing a major role. The internet brings problems in the World’s society but to compare WWI may be farfetched. The internet does make us forget about the past and the original and often important things in life. But as long as we can regulate it and learn from the past the internet opens the door for so many more positive things and then the consequences.

I don’t see the fun in living in isolated communities from everyone. I feel like living in a borderless world is a good thing. Everyone stays connected and united. We may not get the harsh nationalism ideas and motive to knock down other each other’s borders.

Here’s a link I stumbled across. Talks about what we were discussing in class.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/sc-fam-0125-car-cam-20110125,0,528773.story

Everything Has a Price

James Carey wrote an article, "Historical Pragmatism and the Internet", that discussed how new technologies such as the telegraph, electricity, the telephone, the radio, television and cable television have all produced the same reaction to society. That is, that the technological advances overcome many boundaries. In reality, people do not recognize that new boundaries, or social borders, are created from the new technologies. When the internet was created, many people believed that the past technological borders from previous technological advances would be broken down and people would no longer be "controlled". I believe that Carey does a good job in explaining that there are flaws regarding the 1990's literatuure produced by the internet. Carey stated that there were three flaws: "1) it was not sufficiently grounded in the historical development of technology; 2) it viewed the internet in isolation, failing to consider the wider technological context; 3) it failed to examine the internet in view of the social, economic, religious, and political circumstances of its users". The article does an excellent job of going back and reexamining previous inventions such as the telegraph and radio and perceiving how society believed that these inventions would be a breakthrough to boundaries that had been established. Carey states, "All social change is purchased at a price. Securing what we want always entails giving up something we also want. Every gain is simultaneously a loss". With every invention, we can observe that yes, these advances do change the borders, but there are always new borders or guidelines introduced even if they are not seen. Every technological advance creates a new border.

From previous class discussions it can be understood how the internet creates a border for society. People who own a website are able to track information about their website visitors/users. Agreed, users are now able to search almost anything that they need to, but in the process may be losing some of their privacy rights. Web pages are now able to obtain information such as a user's interests, relationship status, store preferences, etc. The border that society believed was collapsed when the internet was invented was that people could not have easy access globally to information. The border that was created that people may not always consider is that a person's privacy while searching for information may become comprised.

Cell phones have been the new "hot topic" in our country. Cell phones now have numerous applications that can be placed on an individual's phone. While some of these applications include games, fun facts, and tools such as a flashlight, other applications can be placed on a person's phone that may be invasive. For example, people can now download an application on a phone that states where another user's phone is located. This can be placed on a family member's phone. Even though this idea can be beneficial to track children's whereabouts, is it considered invasion of privacy or just concerned parenting? There's much to be said for the old adage, "Every thing has its price" and "Nothing in life is free".

http://www.techshout.com/mobile-phones/2009/16/att-familymap-service-locates-family-members-stolen-phone/

Advancements at the Speed of Light

In the article When Old Myths Were New: The Ever-Ending Story by Vincent Mosco, we are reminded of the numerous technologies (telegraph, radio, television, ect.) that have been claimed to be "history-ending" technologies and advancements. Mosco defines these technologies as "history-ending" because they are inventions that we believed were so revolutionary that they "ended time, space, and social relations as we have known them." We believed that they were the solution to our all of our problems. While these technologies were undoubtedly life changing, many of them were soon replaced with the next great invention that was given the same label as the previous one. While reading this article, I could not stop thinking of how technological advances are more rapid today than ever before, and if we have in some ways changed our thinking about how we view new technology. While the internet is known to be a technology that has undoubtedly changed the world, I believe that we will someday look back at this technology as one that is only a precursor to another that will be just as monumental as this one has been. When earlier technologies, such as the telegraph, were introduced, it was hard to imagine a new invention that would trump the previous one. Today, we expect new, cutting edge technologies to be developed. The leaps and bounds that once took years, even decades to achieve seem to be happening faster now than ever before. Is this outlook an outcome of our rapidly changing technology? I think one of the easiest ways to see the rapidly changing technology is to look at wireless phones and to think of our attitudes towards the changes we see today. I would have to argue that we no longer see our advancements as "history ending" as we once did but more as a progression towards the next technology.

The Internet and Politics

In his article, "Historical pragmatism and the internet", James Carey argues that historical research on the interent is not sufficient as it doesn't account for the historical context that goes along with technological developments, not does it consider how ideological factors such as politics, religion, economics and culture effects it. By this, he is arguing that there needs to be a pragmatic approach when looking at the internet so that we can decipher the course it is going to take in the future. He believes that even though there are always different styles and types of technologies being developed through time, they all been effected in similar ways in relation to what's going on in society at that time.
Carey also argues that technology and politics, particularly democracy have always been related and effect one other. The example he uses of this is following World War II when television was becoming increasingly popular around the world and countries set up their own standardization of connecting to a network. For example, if you live in France and want to watch television, you have watch what the French standard shows and you will be unable to watch shows from other countries. This course of action went along with the heightened nationalism and decline of globalization that came about after WWII as each country was trying to rebuild it's own economy and culture.
If we take Carey's two arguments that technological developments should be looked at pragmatically and that technology is related to the politics of its time, then we can assume the internet reflects today's global political structure, just as television did 50 years ago. As we know, the internet is an extremely interactive tool, allowing for people to become commentators on any kind of current issue and formulate their own opinions. Does politics follow this course? Are the 'people' able to interact with their political leaders and influence decisions? Perhaps not in the sense that the people have taken power from government, but what about when we consider a phenomenon such as Wikileaks. Wikileaks has changed the structure of international relations as it has revealed information that is usually kept private from opposing nations. Now, that information is out there for anyone to see and comment on. Of course, Wikileaks would not have been possible without the development of the internet, but it should be taken into account that politics would also not be put at risk by this huge development.

http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/12/01/wikileak-serious-attack-to-us-foreign-policy/

Calculating the Future

The article "Historical Pragmatism and the Internet" by James W. Carey is a look at the implications of trying to read the impact that technologies have on the future and understanding of culture. Carey cautions the common attempt that people make to foresee the impact a particular technology is going to have on society and culture. Carey reflects how people assume, or perhaps hope, that the future is a smaller world, that the boundaries between different societies and cultures becomes continually smaller.

People naturally desire to predict the future and create a world to look forward to or to fear. As mentioned by Carey, many people do this without actually looking at the lessons of history of the facts of what may or may not manifest itself in actuality. There is, of course, nothing wrong with predictions and thoughts about the future and implications technology may have on our culture and society. It is important to allow these things to be nothing more than predictions and thoughts, because the future can determine itself in any unpredictable way. The article that Carey wrote relates to an article from 1995 published in Newsweek, where the author made predictions about the internet that ended up becoming almost entirely false. The article managed to wrongly predict many things that became the most popular aspects of the internet. Like Carey said, and like the Newsweek article proves, predictions about technology and the future are innately difficult to accurately predict. Predictions can be made, but a review of history helps to avoid the mistakes that are repeated over and over again.

Mark Heffernan

Newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html

Historical Pragmatism and the Internet

In James W. Carey’s Historical Pragmatism and the Internet, he discussed how technologies such as the telegraph, electricity, the telephone, the radio, television, and cable television have all been seen as “history ending” technologies. But as we know now, these were not in fact history ending, they were only the beginning. Today our society is focused on the internet and the possibilities that it holds for us. We are able to communicate in more ways than before, we have more access to information, we have abilities to produce just about anything desirable, and many other options because of the internet. Carey shows how the technologies that were developed were all developed to promote some kind of change. The radio was supposed to help educate individuals, young or old, and the television is also supposed to also help educate individuals while informing them better than the radio of politics.

I thought this was a good article and very interesting. I thought it was interesting that Carey said that we grow up with technologies so we automatically think that these things have always been there. This is interesting because I’ve grown up with these technologies and have not really thought twice about them. But without all of the technologies before the internet, it would be impossible for the internet to be around. The internet is helping educate individuals, but I wonder if the information being taught is entirely correct because of the fact that everyone is able to publish anything they want. Maybe the internet and the freedom it offers is not entirely a good thing?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_internet_caused_more_harm_than_good_to_the_society
Everyone has their own opinion of if the internet is good or bad and their reasoning’s can now be published..

The Internet: A New Myth Begins

In Vincent Mosco’s “When Old Myths Were New” he compares cyberspace, or the Internet, to earlier “history-ending” technologies, such as the telegraph, electricity, telephone, radio, and cable television. By “history-ending” he means the anticipation that a certain technological advancement would be the change society and culture need for a utopian world. Mosco states that many of the promises that were made about these earlier technologies, such as a strong force for social equality and world peace, are now being applied to the Internet. Many now criticize the achievement of these promises on earlier technology since social inequality and world conflict still exist.

Is it possible that the Internet could change all of this? Is it possible that the Internet can change social, political, and economical functions for the better? Many advocates of cyberspace seem to think so. President Obama is one advocate of the Internet that believes the Internet is necessary for a better stronger America. In his recent State of the Union speech, Obama promised that his administration will make it possible for businesses to deploy high-speed wireless coverage to ninety-eight percent of all Americans in the next five-years. In his speech he brings up examples of how the Internet can bring business to rural community farmers in Iowa or Alabama. He also mentions the opportunity of a patient to video chat with her doctor. He gives these examples to show the importance of investing in innovation, education, and infrastructure, since these investments will make America a better place (CBS News). Obama is installing the belief that the Internet will solve many of America’s problems. Sounds familiar. It may just be that history is repeating itself once again and but this time the government is endorsing the technology. And most likely with our tax dollars…

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029565-503544.html

Evolving Technology Mediums, What's Next?

In Mosco's piece, he talks about the idea that every new technology medium is viewed as the "end all be all" starting with the telegraph advancing to the telephone and eventually cable television and currently the Internet. People speculated that their particular era was unique in transforming the world as it was currently formulated. Writers spoke in the same way with cable television as being an information super highway that they talk about with the Internet today. But what does the future have in store for us?

Certainly there are people that believe that we cannot possibly do much better than the Internet with the numerous ways to access it from your gaming system, cell phone, television, etc. Those people would argue that we have revolutionized the world, and have gone leaps and bounds beyond the telegraph and telephone, and they would be right. But history has a habit of repeating itself, and with that comes a new technology medium. You are starting to see a new wave of innovation with 3D televisions coming from the movie theatres into your own living room. Within another 5 years I would imagine 3D televisions will be quite affordable for most of middle America, and then what's next? How do we keep expanding into the future? In futuristic movies, the idea of virtual reality is explored with the possiblity of living out alt-world fantasies like in the movie Gamer, where you can take control of a real person and act out a real life videogame as if you were actually right there.

This is just one vision that some have for the future of technology mediums, but it is almost certain that the Internet will not be the stopping point with the way that technology moves in such rapid forward movements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2g94xQmtHw

Ryan Mergen

The Sublimation of Old Technology

The telegraph was used to relay messages; electrification was used to light up the night; the telephone was used as a two-way communicator; the radio was used to entertain, educate, advertise and more through your ears, and the television was the radio for your eyes. What do all of these means of communication have in common? They were supposed to end “history, geography, and politics”. In, “When Old Myths Were New: The Ever Ending Story” by Vincent Mosco, Mosco’s idea is that these brilliant inventions were part of an informational or communicative technology revolution of their era. When these new inventions were introduced, they are seen as “magical” or the greatest that the world has ever seen. They are seen as connecting people together. Of course, one after another after another, a new medium is discovered to change our viewpoints and opinions on anything imaginable. These new technologies not only change our beliefs, but we adapt to the lifestyle and the communities it provides us. Mosco’s viewpoint is often that we take for granted and move onto the next big thing. He often uses the word “sublime” which means that it has a high intellectual value to imply how humanity felt about these new technologies at that time. When hearing sublime, I often think of “sublimation”: the change from a solid to a gas. Like these new technologies, they start off as a solid: equipped to stand for a better world. When something better comes along, they disappear, like a gas, yet are still there in spirit (and scientifically, still atomically there). Today’s new technology is the Internet, but more specific, the World Wide Web. People are able to blog about anything they want, creating more content for people to read, understand and formulate a viewpoint. Facebook, a website for social networking, has recently been changing politics in Egypt. If one website can help structure a protest of 85,000 people, what’s next?

Unseen Borders

In the article "Historical Pragmatism and the Internet," by James Carey, Carey often mentions that while many problems within communication are solved and many borders are taken down due to the creation of new technologies and mediums, there are also always borders being created that are unseen. In his article I agreed with the flaws that he saw within 1990's literature produced about the Internet. Much of that literature seemed to be doused in technological determinism, or the belief that new technologies and technology in general has inherent qualities that change the outlook and function of many aspects of society, and also fix many problems within society. Carey seemed to disagree with technological determinist's, and history also seems to be on his side.

I thought that Carey was right about the unseen boundaries, borders, and dangers that the great technology that is the Internet is creating. Borders of time and space are destroyed, and we can now monitor government action more closely and internalize information that is mass-disseminated throughout the world wide web. While we can do all these things now, other borders are being built that we can't see. Since economics and business are involved with any communication technology, freedom of access to everything the Internet has to offer could slowly be monitored, filtered, and you could only access material that you pay for or that your provider allows for you. It also permanently records all information that you may possible have on the Internet through websites, information collecting, cookies, etc. The talk of unseen borders reminded me of some of the work of John Keane and his ideas of a monitory democracy, which is one that we live in today. We are more able to monitor and keep track of the government and issues with politics, while at the same time we have less freedom to privacy and allow the government to further and constantly monitor us. Through our use of technologies like the Internet, smart phones, and everything new that is emerging, we are further allowing ourselves to be tracked by "big brother," and are in a new age of democracy, one where we can be constantly monitored.

John Keane:

http://www.thelifeanddeathofdemocracy.org/glossary/glossary_monitory_democracy.html

technological determinism:

http://www.allsands.com/Misc2/technologicalde_ubp_gn.htm

A link to solfege, talked about in the music section of the article:

http://www.ars-nova.com/PracticaManual/solfege.htm

Too Good to be True

In James W. Carey’s Historical pragmatism and the internet he claims that social discussions regarding the internet, particularly in the 1990’s suffered from three fatal flaws. These are; it was not sufficiently grounded in the historical development of technology; it viewed the internet in isolation, failing to consider the wider technological context; and it failed to examine the internet in the view of the social, economic, religious and political circumstances of its users.

For this response I’d like to focus on Carey’s reference to Maynard Keynes’ The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920). He writes that in the early 1900’s gentlemen in London were blessed with miraculous technologies that the previous generations of the 19^th century couldn’t have dreamed of; the railway, telegraph and underwater cable among others. In this way, he says they were so ignorant to the complex social, economic and political factors that such technologies relied on that no one expected that they could come crashing down at an instant. In fact this is what happened in the coming years as war and economic depression arrived. I very much agree with his comparison of the early 1900’s to the 21^st century. Today we take so much for granted, with an even more fragile and complex sector of technological advances. Yet the United States is more challenged than England ever was in the sense that from an infrastructural standpoint we have more ground to cover than most other nations on Earth. It may take some understanding from the “crappiest generation of spoiled idiots,” as comedian Louis C.K. alludes to in the attached clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

Published by: Mike Anderson

Technological Advances; Good or Bad?

In James Carey's article, "Historical Pragmatism and the Internet" Carey discusses a lot about how the internet has changed how we view the world and how we communicate which has in the end caused problems within more than just our social lives but as well as in politics all around the world. We have seen a change in technology throughout decades and it has both advanced how we communicate and do things as a population as well as restricted us and made us much more aware of the world around us, which in turn has not always been a good thing. Carey also discusses briefly how with every new year and new advancement with technology comes the expectation that the world is going to end or something bad is going to happen. Carey also touches briefly on musical literature and how technology alone has made it so that we have forgotten the roots and where music literature originated and how it stuck with us, without any form of technology but merely memorization.

After reading this article by Carey, it made me realize that a lot of these things he brought up were indeed true and very relevant in today's society. Technology just keeps on advancing whether we as a population like it or not. But how is this helping us when it is just making us more segregated within our own boundaries. We have in a sense forgotten how to communicate with one another without any form of technology. Carey also touches on how many people feel that borders that have blocked many people from communication have been broken down, however we do not see those other borders that are constantly being put up with more advances in technology. Cell phones is one example of this, yes we are now capable of talking to someone across the world for a small amount of money. However, the larger companies that make this capable are able to know who, when, how long, and possibly what you talked about without your consent. So even though these boundaries are not there in our eyes, there are many other boundaries that are being put up on a regular basis. Along these lines something seen much more prominent today is these constant advancement with social networking and how it has changed how we communicate with one another along with how we speak to one another.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902604,00.html

Technological Magic Never Dies

In the chapter “When Old Myths were New”, Vincent Mosco describes the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television as magical, wizardly, and mythical during the time when they were first introduced to the world. These new technologies transformed the world during their own time of introduction, but he believes that their magic dies out. They accomplish their miracles and then fade into a memory of an often too forgetful public.

I on the other hand think that Mosco favors a more drastic view on this topic. These technologies do not die they just evolve from generation to generation. The telegraph has evolved into email, the telephone has evolved from a typical house phone to a sophisticated portable cell phone, radio has evolved into an Ipod, and television has evolved into tivo, movies, and dvds.

There is one magical technology that is able to combine all of these technologies into one. Therefore, keeping each individual technologys’ magic alive. Depending on a person’s preference or demographic, they are able to access all of these technologies through the wonderful world of Internet. Email is only able to be used through the internet but in addition society can access skype to keep in touch with another person, or online radio or Itunes to listen to music. The public can also view television shows or movies online through fastpasstv.com or sidereel.com. Technically today, the only technology someone would need to be able to access all of these other technologies would be the internet.

http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home
http://www.npr.org/
http://www.sidereel.com/
http://www.fastpasstv.com/

Thoughts on the Internet and Lewis Mumford’s Authoritarian and Democratic Technics

In Lewis Mumford’s Authoritarian and Democratic Technics, the author categorizes technics into two categories: the authoritarian technology that is “system-centered, immensely powerful but inherently unstable”, and the democratic technology that is “man-centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable.” To exemplify these two kinds of technologies, the authoritarian ones are machines, computers, while the other includes family farms, small firms, and craftsman. Mumford strongly attacks the authoritarian technologies because in his opinion, the authoritarian technics foresees a future of centered power and lack of public participation. Democracy is in crisis as Mumford states in the article, in 1960s.

Half century after, as I read the article while immersed in all kinds of newly developed technologies such as PC, smart phones, Internet, etc. It is not an innovative idea that the Internet encourages public discuss and therefore democracy. The era we are experiencing now has witnessed a different possibility of the system-centered technics. Without doubt that the Internet is supported by servers, and definitively should be categorized as the “authoritarian” technic, but we might also see some features of democratic technics on the Internet. The revolutionary decentralization accomplished by the Internet giving great autonomy to individual users can be analogized to the men-centered democratic technics at the same time. Therefore I think the proposition stated in Mumford’s article has its limitation due to the era it was in, and the emergence of the Internet has expand our horizon to view technics in a newer, more sophisticated angle.

Blog 1

In the article entitled “Do Artifacts Have Politics,” Langdon Winner defines the social determination of technology as “what matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded.” I think this is a great definition and it applies directly to the success of Facebook as well as my search for graduate schools and future employment.

As we all know, the economy has been terrible for quite a long time and people all around the world have lost their jobs because of it. Struggling families have become the norm, and many people are willing to accept any job offer in order to support themselves and their families. These difficult social and economical times changed the landscape of Facebook because it was originally created for college students to keep in contact with old friends, but it quickly became a terrific medium for young professionals looking for jobs. The creators of this social networking site probably never thought Facebook would become such a great networking tool for millions of people around the world looking for jobs, but the social and economic system in which Facebook is embedded allowed Facebook to expand.

As a senior, I am currently in the process of applying to graduate school and leaning toward becoming a high school guidance counselor and basketball coach. As a result, I have been networking with former teachers, counselors, and coaches via email, telephone calls, and surprisingly Facebook. At first, I thought contacting these specific individuals via Facebook would be unprofessional, but the social and economic system we are currently living in makes it acceptable. When Facebook was originally created, no one thought we would use this social networking site to search for jobs, keep in touch with former teachers, or reach out to graduate programs, but the times have changed and new technologies like Facebook have benefitted tremendously.

http://hubpages.com/hub/MySpace-vs-Facebook

Paying to Watch Hulu...and commercials

Some of you might enjoy watching your favorite television shows on Hulu. You don’t have to download anything (like torrents), it takes less time to watch an episode on Hulu than watching it on television since you only have to endure one or two commercials rather than having to go through a whole stream of commercials as you do when watching television (although we can start a new debate on what it means to watch television today), and you can catch up on whatever episode or segment of the show you missed when it first aired on television whenever you want (no need to worry about the content disappearing from the website because of copyright infringement like YouTube). With content streaming Hulu allows you to save the trouble of downloading the content and watch the five latest episodes of popular shows for free…as long as you’re willing to tolerate several obnoxious commercials. Free content, minimum advertisements, space for user comments and discussion (a la YouTube), and aggregation of shows from more than 200 content suppliers have all contributed in making this website of joint venture among NBC, Fox, and ABC (although there continues to be talks between Hulu and CBS, the Eye network is not a part of Hulu. Here’s why.) very popular among users over the past several years. However, in order to search for other ways to generate revenue Hulu has begun a monthly-based subscription service on June 29, 2010, called Hulu Plus, which is basically like Hulu but has an expanded content library with more episodes of shows available to the users (those who use this service will have access to all of the episodes from the current season as well as full series of classic television shows). Hulu continues to provide free episodes for non-subscribers but the number of free episodes that are available seem to be diminishing. What is puzzling about Hulu Plus is that although it collects a monthly fee from its service users ($7.99/month) it still contain ads (If you’re interested in Hulu’s response to why we have to pay to watch advertisements read this piece.). Furthermore, for those who want to use Hulu through different platforms other than computers such as iPad, iPhone, or other smartphones, none of the contents are available to the users for free-even the ones that are free if you access them through the internet. Hulu’s response is that the fee is for convenience–we can watch our favorite shows anytime, anywhere, on through whatever device (Watch the clip of the response from Jason Kilar, CEO of Hulu, on why Hulu is making users who want to access Hulu contents on a different device pay.). Is it fair for the consumers to watch advertisements for a paid service? Is it fair for those who want to access content on Hulu through a different platform to pay for the same service that is free on the Internet? Can convenience that digital technology loudly promises us only be enjoyed with a payment?

Some sample posts from previous classes

http://rculberg.blogspot.com/  
http://dttfaa.blogspot.com/
http://slannon22.blogspot.com/
http://downtime05.blogspot.com/

Comcast Merger

This hasn't been getting quite as much media coverage as it deserves, but it's a big deal: the Feds have signed off on Comcast acquiring a majority interest in NBC Universal. It's a big deal because it highlights the emerging commercial logic of new media. If people are willing to pay for "pipeline" but not for "content" -- that is, if they'll pay for internet access, but not for TV shows, movies, and music -- then the logical choice is for the "pipeline" companies like Comcast to take over the content companies and start creating their own content. In economic terms a merger like this is a form of vertical integration: it combines different levels of the value chain -- in this case production (NBC) and distribution (Comcast). In the bad old days of media monopoly in the movie industry, measures were taken to prevent movie studios from owning movie theaters -- another form of vertical integration -- because of the power that it gave studios to block rivals from gaining access to outlets for their movies. If 20th Century Fox owned the majority of movie theaters in the country, they could control which movies the public gets to see. The laws were intended to increase competition and thereby to increase the diversity of content available to the public -- one of the goals of legal regulation in a democratic society. In a world in which Comcast has its own TV company it has a similar incentive to block access to rivals (perhaps slowing their signals) and to direct as much traffic as possible to its content. Thus, issues of net neutrality are at stake in the merger: that is, will commercial providers continue to allow equal access to the internet, or will they start to block or slow access to some parts of the net and favor access to others. Maybe we won't have one internet anymore, but different internets that access different sites, depending on what internet provider we use. At stake, in other words, is the open character of the internet and the future of the broad array of information that it has made available to those with internet access.