Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 June
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Jill Walker's blog- media/game theory
New Zealand Blogs
MediaChannel.org
Torill Mortensen's blog- "thinking with my fingers"- MUDS/Games?Media
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Posthuman cyborg spotting with Stelarc and Bell. |
| 08.27.03 (7:00 am) [edit] |
I propose that the modern, physical world 'Cyborg' contrasts significantly with the generic SCIFI derived type:
- It seeks power OVER the body rather than to give inhuman power to the body
- It is a sign of perceived physical disempowerment
- It is a stronger sign of perceived and real mental disempowerment
- Modern cyborgs suggest evolutionary stagnation, in the Darwinian sense but perhaps we are claiming some control of our own evolution.
- Cyborgism suggests an innate longing for immortality
- Our obsession with the above suggests another associated human characteristic, that of mental/intellectual disembodiment: the mind and the body as separate entities. Contradictory in its essence? In the Aesthetic Cyborg discussion, one could look at it this way: The minds need to radically change the body, driven by representational dissatisfaction, is illogical and suggests a substantial separation between mind and body, when the dissatisfaction is arguably a mental state.[T]
Perhaps that makes more sense :?
|
|
|
| |
| Cyborg… |
| 08.27.03 (5:31 am) [edit] |
The pill, viagra, E, P, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack, ibuprophen, paracetamol, aspirin, botox, caffeine, tannin, steroids, paxil, prozac, zoloft…
Implanted breast/penile/calf/bicep/ pectoral/buttock et al, teeth filled/capped/replaced/st raightened/braced, gums raised, pierced tongue/lip/ear/nose/eyebr ow/bellybutton/nipples/?? ? nose cartilage shaved/cropped, synthetic extensions to chin/cheekbones/nose tip, surgical-stitch lifted eyebrows, face lifted, eyes lasered, ears pinned, hair coloured/replaced, fat sucked/redistributed/pulv erised/vibrated, stomachs stapled/irrigated/filled to bursting
Bones plated/pinned/screwed/tra nsplanted/remade – hips/knees/elbows, organs removed/replaced/recondit ioned/artificialised – skin/heart/valves/ears/ey es
Hormones introduced/induced/replac ed/synthesised, vitamins, nutrient riches…
Will all be assimilated…? [T]
|
|
|
| |
| media influences society or what was first: the egg or the chicken ? |
| 08.27.03 (4:24 am) [edit] |
Everybody blames media how bad it is and that it uses its power and we cannot do something against it.
But - I am actually not sure if this is true.
In my experience media companies do mostly not really want to control the people - they want to make money.
And whatever sells will be produced. So - how I said in my last post - media is a magic mirror - what we want to see we will see and this will influence us.
I can remember the time when germany had big brother (which was some years ago). Everybody said how terrible this was and that media culture really is going down - but many people were watching it. So - how can we blame the tv-station to produce this shit if we are watching it ?
I know a lot of people who are really angry about the money which german tv-station pay the german soccer league. But most of them are actually soccer-fans and watch the sport-show. This means - whatever people want will be shown.
On the other hand: RTL (a german tv-station) is the tv-station to show formula 1. But they do not only have the formula-1-show. In their news-show the sport part is usually to 50% formula 1 (and soccer - the 1st sport in germany - has maybe 10%). This means - they create an importance of formula 1 - it is in the news. This importance then results in more people interested in formula 1 and more people watching formula 1 and more money out of advertisment. This means: media tells us what to show and influences us.
Now: what was earlier ? egg or chicken ? the influence of media to society or the influence of society to media ?
We cannot just blame media how bad they are - because we determine what they show us - and we can influence this stuff (because they need us !). But we have to be critical and active. And we have to switch off if we think this is bad.
(Lars)
|
|
|
| |
| school killing |
| 08.27.03 (4:12 am) [edit] |
I was reading the posts of last days - about media and their influence on society and how bad media is and terrible and so on .. and .. hmm .. what made me think was the post of Katie "media influence on society".
Katie wrote ".. In situations such as this it often seems necessary for people to have someone or something to blame .." - and in a way she is right.
The interesting thing is that we say (and I have to include myself) "for people to have" .. This seems so far away .. the people. WE want to know what the reasons for people running through a city shooting everyone is. But nobody wants to be guilty. Therefore we are looking for somebody else. Because we did all things right - we are not to blame - somebody else is wrong.
I can remember the 26th of April 2002. On this day in Erfurt (which is a capital of a german state) a young guy (19 years old) was running through his school, killing 16 people and then himself. In 1999 a 15 years old boy about 10 km from the city I live (I live in Dresden - this was in Meissen) killed his teacher. In 2000 a 16 year old guy shoot his teacher and tried to kill himself. So - in the USA there are much more cases - it is not only in America where violence in schools are growing. Especially the Erfure-case was really shocking. This guy was thrown from school about half an year before he killed - and his parents didn't notice. Hi went every day out and came back - and at the time when he was supposed to sit in his exams and finally his parents will notice he decided to kill.
Now everybody blamed Computer games (he was counterstrike-player) and media. But: Nobody cared really about this guy. It was not media who made him worse - the people he lived with didn't care about him.
We live in a society where everybody wants freedom and independence. But this means as well, there are no strings holding you. If you want a free society you are free in both directions - in the good way (you can do what you want and nobody will care) and in the bad way (you can do what you want - try whatever you want - nobody will care).
We should stop blaming somebody - we should start thinking about what we can change so that something like this will not happen ! Media is not guilty - they are just a magic mirror. The masses say what they want to see - and they will see it.
|
|
|
| |
| “Violence is to a dictatorship what media is to a democracy” |
| 08.27.03 (12:35 am) [edit] |
Earlier this year i watched a documentary about Noam Chomsky. The documentary focused on media at various levels and what impact and control it has on society. The most interesting point raised in the the documentary were Mr Chomsky’s comments on media:
“Violence is to a dictatorship what media is to a democracy”
This quote points out the strong influence the media has on our future choices, further to this he highlighted that the media not only controls future choices but decides our history. For example historic files are kept by the New York Times.
What Do You Think?
I would agree but this would mean that that i subscribe to the belief that we don't make our own choices and i don't know weather i am ready to admit that.
Craig
|
|
|
| |
| seeing the world through DIRTY PIXELS |
| 08.26.03 (11:20 pm) [edit] |
I finally made it to the 'Dirty Pixels' exhibition, I took a piece of paper and a pen and have scribbled some sort of response all over it, not sure it makes sense though.
My favourite would have to be 'LA Bloom' a piece by Joyce Campbell. She has produced a set of what look like over sized microscopic slides, arranged on the wall in an asymmetrical grid. They are photogram-type compositions made from bacteria samples from around LA.
I think her major theme has to do with photography but it got me thinking about multiplying pixels, taking for granted by the computer user as they form a coherent whole on the screen.
Its scientific references got me thinking about how human seem to have a need to order things in neat modular constructions and formulas - in the lab, town planning, education, social structures... - almost everything in our lives can be categorised in some way.
I was wondering is this because it makes it easier to communicate to each other our ideas? By placing something in a grid it makes it easier to explain, define and understand - including digital space.
Then I carried on through the exhibition and came across another piece that made me think differently. 'Crash Media' by Tim Ryan is a DVD projection of race cars crashing. He has distorted the picture so all you see is faint outlines, rough shapes, flattened colours; you are barely able to make out the action. It kinda reminded me of being in a car crash - right down to the slow motion effects, as if your life is flashing before your eyes.
It sort of suggested that my experiences of real life were not so unlike those of a digital space (visually at least).
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| link illiterate |
| 08.26.03 (10:29 pm) [edit] |
don't think that link on my last blog is working and i know not how to fix it.
the article is somewhere on the wesite w ww.weblogkitchen.com and is called something like blogging thoughts. its by the same people whom marc has added to our side bar - jill and torill.
also the 'first native web genre' quote is off a blog from the new media course at the University of Bergen website.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| Weblogs as Counter Surveillance |
| 08.26.03 (10:22 pm) [edit] |
I found an article that talked about the position of Weblog's as along the boundary between the public and the private sphere link. Here they can work as a type of counter surveillance for the technology that so often surveys us.
The increased reliance on and use of technology (email, credit cards etc.) in our day to day lives enables our actions to be traced and our paths followed. Furtherly, the proliferation and immediacy of the media in our surroundings performs a regulatory function - our perceptions of the world become mediated by the choices of others.
These ideas are true also of the promises offered by Cyberspace - on the one hand it allows us to connect to the world from the comfort of our own home, but in doing so invites the world into our private space.
Weblog's, 'the first native Web genre', embody this two way flow. They offer an invited intrusion of public scrutiny into ones personal thoughts. This position although vulnerable also enables Blogs to serve as a type of counter surveillance.
As personal thoughts, published in a public space they offer insights into how others interpret the world. Their unique position on the public/private border cuts out the middle media man. The short bits of info are easily digestible and highlight links to sites otherwise unheard of.
So providing you feel comfortable recording your thoughts on the web and have enough interest to read others, perhaps Weblogging is an answer to the problems of media manipulation.
(alice)
[LINE]
|
|
|
| |
| Attached to our Bodies |
| 08.26.03 (9:55 pm) [edit] |
I was reading the Stelarc article and began wondering why is it that we humans are simultaneously inventing technologies to save our bodies (medicinal purposes) whilst, increasingly we use similar technologies to construct a world in which these bodies are no longer needed???
If cyberspace is so utopian, limitless and free, a space with the ability to include all kinds of cool stuff free of physical hierarchies...etc...etc. Where one can truly be oneself or even their preferred self. If all one needs is a computer and an internet connection then why do we still invest so much in our physical selves??
Despite the possibilities that cyberspace offers to construct/project/form ones identity in any which way, there will always be eating disorders, plastic surgeons, scientists searching for cures, drugs, stylie accessories and other various ways in which humans attempt to find an identity for themselves. Cyberspace is perhaps only an extension of such devices.
The space that promises to free us from the limits of our physical selves is itself limited by our attachment to the very body it seeks to render obsolete.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| Patriots |
| 08.26.03 (9:38 pm) [edit] |
The idea of surveillance brings me to the “Patriot Bill”. Oh what a bill. What a way to throw away any sort of privacy that you actually had left and give more power to people who shouldn’t even have power to begin with. Among other things, the bill allows for the FBI or CIA or whoever they are, to invade peoples privacy – phone lines, personal information… you name it – with a mere suspicion that they have done / are doing something wrong. Furthermore, it gives ‘them’ (I’m not exactly sure who ‘they’ are) the right to deny people access into the country for absolutely no reason whatsoever. They say no, you have no say.
The thing that interests me the most about this bill – and no, not the stupid name – is the fact that this bill was rushed through congress straight after the terrorist attacks so that it received almost no media coverage and even where it did it was such an opportune time for the government to try and convince a scared nation that it would help to catch the ‘bad guys” that almost nobody cared. Americans that I know were totally aware of what was going on and were disgusted by it. But as they say “what can you do?” Unless the whole nation is opposed so strongly that it will convince congress that it’s not a good idea – or that they won’t be voted in again – then personal opinion counts for nothing.
The way that the Bill was introduced at a time of such fear and uncertainty shows that the government took advantage of such a terrible situation for their own gain. How far will this surveillance and attempts at control go before the people stop and realize that they are giving themselves away – giving more control to those in power? Lets hope not too far, because it will spread to our own backyard in no time, if its not already there.
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| surveillance |
| 08.26.03 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
Has anyone seen the film Enemy of the State? I have to admit that it’s probably not the best movie I have ever seen, but it raises some interesting questions about surveillance.
As I was sitting in the library yesterday, working on my 480 (brownie points anyone!) I looked up to see a camera looking straight back down at me. The ISB building has a massive number of cameras everywhere, watching our every move making me paranoid about every sneaky attempt at food consumption that I make. Banks, shops, every eftpos transaction, credit card transaction, computer log-on, e-mail message, phone call – it seems that every time I use technology I am also leaving a fingerprint for people to use to track me down. (I’m not actually on the run by the way…)
We may just be numbers to many of these people and organizations, but we are numbers that lead to names, that lead to us. If someone in some sort of power were ever trying to find out information about my life, it wouldn’t be difficult. I would suggest that a good starting point for them would be my bank statement. If you want info about my first few weeks in Dunedin this year, all you would need to read would be ‘Superliquor’, ‘Superliquor’, ‘Poppas Pizza’, ‘KFC’, ‘Superliquor’… so it (sadly) goes. It explains every town I visited on every date and where I spent my money. It says a lot about me. We never really have privacy in the technological environment in which we live - there is always someone who can trace our actions.
Is there really any advantage for us? Perhaps in isolated cases where someone has gone missing or something stolen that was captured on tape then it would be useful. What concerns me is the idea of a database of “me” with all recorded information going to the same place and everything I do telling someone else - someone I don’t even know - about my every move. Just like how Will Smith was bugged and chased for something he didn’t even know he had (just like real life!). At least surveillance can’t get into my head…
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| media influence on society |
| 08.26.03 (8:29 pm) [edit] |
With reference to Bowling for Columbine and media influence on society, I don’t think we can ever really blame one element of society for such events, especially when, as the film explains, other societies experience the exact same influences with nowhere near the repercussions.
In situations such as this it often seems necessary for people to have someone or something to blame, as Craig mentioned Marilyn Manson or television violence, as if this can make it better and bring some sort of finality. Perhaps it is possible that new media technologies such as the internet have allowed for greater access and communication between these self proclaimed social outcasts, however it does not necessarily mean that this is the cause of their actions, surely for people to go so far as to shoot up a school they would have to have some pre-existing issues or be influenced by a number of different elements. Despite this, interesting examples were raised in the film that question the possible influence that television media may have of people. Michael More looks at the concept of fear – that the US audience is fed fear day after day in their news, and this does have some influence on the viewers. He compared it to Canadian news where, there are more ‘mild’ stories and a more ‘mild’ society. Do the children of Canada or Japan or Germany not listen to the same music and play the same video games as children in the US? Of course they do, so why is America so different? Ultimately it is a question that can never have a specific answer.
The idea of being fed fear by the news is quite interesting. After the terrorist attacks… actually more recently, like before the Iraq war, Americans were told by the powers that be (and of course reinforced through the media), that in order to protect themselves from possible biological attacks they should by plastic sheeting and duct tape to put over their windows and doors, not to mention gas masks and whatever else. Sales of duct tape went through the roof. I would be interested in further investigating how much duct tape companies had to do with this! It seems crazy. To begin with I’m reasonably sure that the chances of a biological attack were pretty low, and even if they weren’t I’m quite sure that plastic and duct tape would be of very little help. Putting fear into their citizens seems to be a way for the government, through the media to control the people of America and make them jumpy and perhaps a little more eager to pull the trigger.
(Katie)
p.s, i was going to put a link to the Bowling for Columbine site, but i told Dave my plan and he beat me to it. Terrible.
|
|
|
| |
| Bowling for South Park |
| 08.26.03 (7:56 pm) [edit] |
I was watching South Park last night and it reminded me of Bowling for Columbine. The news was telling the parents that their children were in danger, firstly from people out of town, than from people within the town, and finally from the parents themselves. The solution: first build a big bloody wall, than follow your kids everywhere, than send your kids away, because that’s safer than them staying with you according to the news.
Stupid, but on South Park it was funny. In real life that's what seems to happen. We’re constantly told society is dangerous, as a result that’s what happens because people believe they have to act in ways to protect themselves. Screw others over before they screw you (capitalism?).
I don't really believe that a kid watching a violent movie or playing a violent game will make them psycho, but I do believe that the media can set the agenda for the mood of a society. Being constantly told that these are dangerous times will surely sooner or later make you believe it. Just the same way New Zealanders believe that our country is clean and green, even if it is as shitty as any other country.
On 60 minutes the other night they had a report on how '1 in 5 teenage girls is the recipient of abuse in a relationship'. This was an American report and an American statistic, but it leads us to believe that our society is similar. Do we in New Zealand believe that our society is more dangerous than it is because the American media is portraying their society like this? I can’t remember the last time a kiwi kid took a gun to school and shot their classmates... thankfully.
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| What group do you belong to a,b, c or d? |
| 08.26.03 (7:38 pm) [edit] |
The other day in class we were discussing ideas of groups. What we wear, how we cut our hair and overall how we fit into what is the larger picture of society.
Being a marketing student always focusing on target audiences of homogeneous groups of people as a means of selling a product got me thinking. Do we really have the choice to be ourselves or does the media depict who we become?
The media feeds us information about behaviour that will lead to us being a part of a particular group and we digest it happily to become slaves to consumption.
Thinking about this more and more leads me to the conclusion that yes we are told we have a choice but do we really? I don't think so “choosing” to be alternative is just classing yourself in the alternative group no different to the reason why a skater wears baggy jeans to fit in with that group.
I see humans as needing a feeling of belonging therefore they subscribe to these groups rules and conditions.
When you look at your self however this is quite a scary notion. Your hair, clothes, actions.
What group do you belong to a,b, c or d?
However in all things there are extremes.
Craig
|
|
|
| |
| Can the media be blamed |
| 08.26.03 (6:55 pm) [edit] |
I recently watched the documentary ‘Bowling for Combine’ which is a documentary that looks at Americas attitude towards guns.
The documentary focuses around the Combine High School killings.
This documentary takes a direct stab at the media and there role at americans attitude towards guns. The usual things are examined for reasons for the killings: music in particular Marilyn Mason, Video Games and violence on TV.
However the documentary does point out that violence does appear on other countries as does gothic music and in these countries they don't have half the people going round shooting each other as America does.
So how much impact does the media have on Society? Can it be blamed for cases like this?
Or could it be the fact that america is just a little different ??????
Or it maybe the fact that they give away guns when you open a bank account. Quite ironic really!!
Craig
|
|
|
| |
| Media |
| 08.26.03 (6:53 pm) [edit] |
For me the news is no different than a soap series or reality TV show.
News is manipulated to fit the constructs of what we the viewer want to see no different to the way big brother is edited for the same reasons.
The reason the news shows death, war and destruction and the weather is that is what we want to see. Nothing more nothing less.
A good example of this is the recent coverage of the war in Iraq which was totally one sided portraying the americans as the saviours of a country badly in need of democracy. (BS)
Failure to show stories that the target audience want to watch lowers ratings and corporate businesses will withdraw their advertising which means less funding for the TV networks.
Knowing this as a society we still tune in night after night to see what is happening on the largest reality show on tv. The News!!!!!
|
|
|
| |
| Virtual Reality- drug of choice for generations to come |
| 08.26.03 (6:18 pm) [edit] |
I was having a discussion with a friend the other day about drugs in society and why people choose to use drugs. Concepts of escaping reality, exploring ones self, feelings of euphoria seemed to be some of the reasons people choose to use drugs.
What ever happened to peer pressure?
Reflecting on this and our dissucussions of VR in class it became obvious that VR may become the drug of choice for generations to come. The same ideas of escaping reality etc. could be formed in the virtual world easily without the physical side affects of the chemicals that these drugs contain.
Would this give the user all of the positives and none of the negatives of drugs of today?
I don't think so!!! psychological affects and the social problems that VR could cause could be very relevant to the problems that drugs cause in society today. For example people may enter this virtual world and never want to leave (a bit like the idea of not ever wanting wanting to come down) No doubt this virtual world would be of some economic value therefore addicted users may steal to support there habit.
So it could be quite possible in years to come the media are publishig articles on the VR epidemic instead of the P epidemic.
Craig
|
|
|
| |
| our mastery has escaped our mastery |
| 08.26.03 (4:32 pm) [edit] |
It is common knowledge that the "winner gets to write the history books". This is why American culture/point of view pervades the world. If you control the media you control the common consciousness. Maybe "America" is just a piddling little metaphor for our real master.
Could "language" be a gigantic, omnipresent, omnipotent, deathless Rupert Murdock? "Language itself" not only controls the media, it is the media. "Language" has us all in its back pocket and it can do anything it wants to- the "Matrix". What if "language" was an entity that inhabited us? "It's outside was our inside" (M. Serres- "the Parasite")
"We are now, admittedly, the masters of the Earth and of the world, but our very mastery seems to escape our mastery. We have all things in hand, but do not control our actions. Everything happens as though our powers escaped our powers - whose partial projects, sometimes good and often intentional, can backfire or unwittingly cause evil. As far as I know, we do not yet control the unexpected road that leads from the local pavement, from good intentions, towards a possible global hell … So, it no longer depends on us that everything depends on us" (Michel Serres "The Origin of Language") (marc)
|
|
|
| |
| grrrrrr |
| 08.26.03 (4:17 pm) [edit] |
"It was created in New Zealand but because of these green party idiots its not allowed to be tested in NZ..."
you didn't vote so you don't get to complain you twit :lol:
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| MUSH for dummies |
| 08.26.03 (3:50 pm) [edit] |
Since I am such a good bugger I will help you with some basic commands for our MUSH so I don’t have to repeat myself to everyone:
To look where you are type:
‘look’ or the letter ‘l’ don’t use quote marks
To examine object/people/room type:
ex name/item
Create your room using @dig name=your abbreviations, their abbreviations
Decide on your room name and the abbreviations you will use to get to your room and the abbreviations to get back to the room you dug from eg-
@dig Small Tropical Island=small tropical island;Small Tropical Island;se;sti;island,Cent ral;nw;central;c
@dig room name=abv1;abv2;abv3, Abv1;Abv2;Abv3
Describe your room using @desc #=
You need to get your room number so ‘look’ when you are in your room and it is next to the room name that’s in red, for example-
@desc #48=enter your description here
Describe yourself using @desc me
Easiest way is to write your description in ‘Word’ eg-
@desc me=Write your blurb here.
To set your gender-
@sex me=female/male
To create an object type:
@create=name of object
To set object description, you guessed it, use @desc #=. It is the same when describing anything in the MUSH, all you need is its number.
This should be enough to get you started, please try it first before you ask me about these commands. Thank you
Ruben
|
|
|
| |
| Media to Medicine |
| 08.26.03 (2:53 pm) [edit] |
To start with on the topic of the Media that everyone is talking about, I don’t think we get the exact story in many cases, I believe that the stories are twisted to make the public feel more pity/anger/happiness etc than usual if they knew all the facts. Not only news programs but reality TV likes to twist the story to get their viewers hooked eg: on Big Brother when one of the guys was voted out and they showed him some of the things the public saw (him always getting “friendly” with one of the girls) he was like that’s not true you guys haven’t shown what really went on. This storyline however got the ratings and that’s all it’s about for the media.
I don’t know how many of you saw the story about the new trail treatment for Parkinson’s disease but I was amazed at how it was carried out. It was created in New Zealand but because of these green party idiots its not allowed to be tested in NZ so it was taken to America and performed on a 50+ year old man. Anyway technology in medicine must have advanced rapidly cause they put a tiny hole in the guys head and feed a real small needle thru into a very specific point deep in the brain. What stunned me was he was awake through the whole thing and had left the hospital within 30 hours of the operation…Wow. I suppose we need machines, as we would suffer badly without them to perform miracle surgery etc.
ruben
|
|
|
| |
| MEdia |
| 08.26.03 (1:02 am) [edit] |
What processes does 'a story' go through before it reaches its audiences? who decides what I might read? what gives them the power to decide? what does all this mean for ME?
Its obvious the power of the media in western world, well I guess I'd like to think it obvious...but how much of what I take to be informative has been distorted, technically all of it.
Reading the other blog's on media makes me wonder exactly how mislead am I?
Katies comment on the extra media coverage that Bush received compared to Gore reminded me of something I read in Mike Moore's book "Stupid White Men".
The first chapter talks about Bush's hook-ups in the media and how they helped secure his win in the state of florida. According to Moore, after the poles closed on election night but before the vote counting had finished, "the Fox News Channel decided to go to air and declare that Bush had won florida and thus the election." Moore goes on to tell how most other networks followed suit even though the facts were not clear. He then explains why Fox would purposfully mislead its huge audience...because "John Ellis, the man in charge of Fox's election coverage...is a first cousin of Bush"
After reading this I'm not sure which I find more disturbing; that Bush used his family connections to win, OR that in order to keep up with the big guys other networks followed Fox's lead, ignoring the facts, OR that the media's premature declaration could interfere with the results of a democratic election.
It seems that no matter how aware I make myself of the media's ability to distort the information I receive it still has the potential to manipulate without directly reaching me. I mean how often do you question live election coverage??
In this way it could be argued media/technology has the ability to control us, but along the lines of what Lars said its not so much technology we should fear its the humans behind it you have to worry about.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| selected news |
| 08.25.03 (9:26 pm) [edit] |
Dave and Katie wrote about the control, media companys have over us. (At least now you see, that I am an information-science-guy .. I speake everytime about control, control, control .. :D ).
Katie wrote "We all have a right to know all elements of news..". The question for me at this point is - is this possible ? Will we ever have the ability to get all elements of news ?
There are so many news ? If we would get all elements of news - we would be busy the whole day just selecting the items we are really interested in. The media has to pre-select for us - because we are not able to grasp all information.
But we need this well known media - company - because these companies have at least a certain amount of credibility. We all know, that Murdoch is the owner of SKY and that therefore SKY will probably support his way of thinking. We know what we have.
The internet would give us the opportunity to collect all information we want. It is free, almost not controled by any government or institution and everybody can speak free his opinion: But it shows the problems with it.
First: there is no way to really get the information we want. Because it is not controlled it has no mechanism to browse or categorize.
Second: We do not know who publishes something. TV and newspapers do usually show the news in a certain way of thinking - but because we know who owns these media-companys we know as well the way of thinking they show and can therefore decide if we want to believe it or not. We do usually not know the publisher of web pages - don't know his or her best-liked political party and can therefore not decide if we want to believe it.
So - in my opinion - there is a need for well-known media-companys and for a selection of news. The question is: how is this selection made. And this is a problem because everybody feels other things as important. And who is the person who appoints the person to decide what is important. I have no solution for that - do you ? (and does my post makes sense - have the impression that it is confus .. )
(Lars)
|
|
|
| |
| blog control |
| 08.25.03 (6:11 pm) [edit] |
When my Listener arrives in its nice little plastic bag every week, my usual sequence of reading goes something like this; Editorial, Computers, Politics. Followed by whichever feature grabs my attention. Geeky I know.
Being a regular reader of Russell Browns computer column and sporadic listener of Mediawatch, I stumbled across Browns Hard News which was formally on Bfm and now part of the PublicAddress.net stable of weblogs. Along with a couple of news sites PublicAddress is usually one of my first ports of call when I’m on the Internet. I find Browns commentary often aligned with my way of thinking and I’m always interested to read his take on things, and the other bloggers input is often interesting and entertaining.
The nature of weblogs requires the linking of pages, presenting your point of view with examples from within these linked pages and pointing readers to information that may be of interest. The beauty of this medium is that it allows you to read what the blogger thinks, take a look at some of the reasons why they think this and come to your own conclusions. It is obvious that Brown spends a great deal of time on this process, which is great for the reader because it saves a great deal of time and effort.
About a month ago public address started placing ads on their pages. This is easy to understand considering they have no other way of recovering the costs involved in running the site. However I was thinking about weather this medium, the attraction of which, for me at least, is the fact that it’s not corporate, can realistically function with paid advertisers on board. The PublicAddress site this morning had a Listener ad on it, however Browns Hard News also had a link within the text. I'm not questioning the integrity of Brown or anyone else involved, it makes sense to have links to information which relates to the topic being discussed (as it did in this case). I'm simply wondering if this could lead to abuse in the future, with individual writers of popular weblogs being paid to link and comment in the interest of companies.
Is it just a matter of time before these avenues of information, which are currently free from any kind of editorial control, are slowly subjected to the influences that affect the mainstream media?
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| adding links on the left column |
| 08.24.03 (8:16 pm) [edit] |
|
I clicked the "add/delete link" button and made a link between us and "Jill/txt" and "Thinking with my fingers"- two old established weblogs talking along the the same lines as "media theory" (us). Linking and being linked to is supposed to be the currency of the web. The links are listed on the left under "elsewhere".(rational marc)
|
|
|
| |
| more media |
| 08.24.03 (6:51 pm) [edit] |
Just to add to yesterdays blog, I have a few points and quotes from “Understanding Power” that are quite general but re-enforce what Dave was saying about affluent audiences relating to news media…
Larger media outlets are agenda setting institutions are also mega-corporations often linked to larger conglomerates.
“I once asked an editor I know at the Boston Globe why their coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so awful – and it is. He just laughed and said, ‘how many Arab advertisers do you think we have?’ That was the end of the conversation.”
“On major issues there is a noticeable split between elite and popular opinion and the media consistently reflect elite opinion. For example, on things like dismantling welfare state programmes or on nuclear weapons freeze, or on US policies in Central America in the 1980s, or on the nature of the Vietnam war, the views expressed in the media have always been very different from public opinion and inline with elite opinion.”
He also relates that in the mid 1970’s, the New York Times advertising and stock began to drop slightly because the Times had taken a “mildly supportive editorial position on a New York tax bill that business was opposed to”. The Times then changed its entire editorial staff. Business Week commented at the time, that “If the New York Times doesn’t realize it’s a business, it wont be in business any longer.”
I think these few examples tell us a lot about word media in general. The news is a business, and business is about making money and keeping the elite happy. In relation to new technologies, I think that these ideas about twisting the truth and only giving us a part of the story become magnified. The internet especially, gives us the opportunity to access a world of information including news that is being related through means other than the global media. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Can we believe what these people say, just because it is printed on the net? I doubt it, but if we cant believe what is in our major newspapers and television networks, then what’s the difference? The net gives us more open access to information that we would otherwise probably not have access to, and therefore greater possibilities to get the ‘real’ truth.
reference: Chomsky, Noam. Understanding Power, The Indispensable Chomsky. Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2002.
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| of the corporates, for the corporates |
| 08.24.03 (6:16 pm) [edit] |
I saw a Chomsky documentary earlier in the year titled, Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in our times. The documentary itself was rather average and I found it covered lots of material that I had seen earlier or read earlier. Katie discussed how media coverage is often skewed to represent the interests of those in power, an extract from the documentary explains how Chomsky believes this is happening:
Questioner: ... What's the mechanism by which the government influences the media ... ?
Chomsky: It doesn't. It doesn't. The government has almost no influence over the media.
Questioner: So how does that happen? ...
Chomsky: ... It's kind of like asking... Suppose somebody asks: How does the government convince General Motors to try to increase profit? It doesn't make any sense. The media are huge corporations which share the interests of the corporate sector that dominates the government. The government can't tell the media what to do. They don't have the power to do it here.
Source
He says that the government doesn't have the 'power to do it here'. Which is a good thing, so I guess I can forget my Orwellian theories for now. However the crux of his argument I believe is that 'The media are huge corporations which share the interests of the corporate sector that dominates the government'. Which I guess eliminates 'of the people, for the people...'
on the story of the month... Did you notice how at one stage earlier this year there seemed to be a new dog attack every day, the dogs must have reacted to the media coverage though and decided that their antisocial behavior must stop.
This month... the Seabed and foreshore.
Next month... katie?
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| media |
| 08.23.03 (10:07 pm) [edit] |
Dave was discussing the ways in which western media portrays and presents world events to viewers. It seems blatantly obvious that news corporations are much a part of our capitalist society - controlled by money. This is a reality, but not one that I feel we have to accept.
It is not simply that news organisations choose specific stories to cover either, but also an issue of what aspects of the stories they cover. I have been reading Noam Chomsky’s “Understanding Power”. In this, he critiques news organisations from major newspapers such as the Washington post and New York Times, to television networks such as CNN. He uses examples of mostly US military regimes in non-western countries to explain the ways in which the media takes what are usually extremely wide and complex issues, and present the audience with a small segment of this, and within this small segment, present the different ‘sides’ of the argument. The audience is therefore tricked into thinking that they are receiving both sides of the story when really they are getting what the networks decide we should know… usually news that will benefit the economy and not stir peoples sense of security.
News corporations have such a huge audience and therefore influence the world over, surely this comes with a responsibility to present the truth as opposed to the slimly selected ‘truth’ that they choose to present to us. I remember reading that Bush got an amazingly high amount of media coverage before the presidential election compared to Gore. The reason for this was said to be that Rupert Murdoch, owner of a massive chunk of the media, supported Bush. Perhaps to the detriment of us all.
We all have a right to know all elements of news, but this is never going to happen with the way that the media currently operates. I’m going to go back to my book when I get home and find some specific examples to better explain my point. Its not so much surprising as it is infuriating how much the ‘truth’ is twisted to benefit advertisers and the US economy.
By the way… do you ever notice how, especially the US media, have a kind of ‘story of the month’ until something more interesting happens. I remember the case of a little Cuban boy who was the sole survivor from a boat of refugees on the east coast of America. There was a huge debate between his father in Cuba and family in the US about who should have guardianship. The media got a hold of this story and ran with it for months – surely more important events in the world and in the country were being ignored. Eventually their house was stormed by the FBI and he was taken back to Cuba. If the media hadn’t followed this story, would anyone have really cared? It seems odd the way the media run with these generally unimportant stories until the next war or plane crash or presidential scandal. What do you think?
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| media decisions |
| 08.23.03 (8:35 pm) [edit] |
So like, this one time, the power went out, and lotsa people cried.
Anyway. Ruben and Lars have been discussing technological threats and natural catastrophes. It seems to me that there is a far greater chance of the earth opening up and swallowing us all than there is of humans creating AI systems that kick our arse. That's not to say that we won't find more mundane ways to wipe out the race (G W Bush anyone?)
I was thinking about the way that the (western) media portrays these events and the emphasis they put on the different outcomes for those involved. To me it seems third world events only matter if they have an (economic) impact on the western world, death rates need to be higher for non westerners to gain the same attention and events such as the North American blackouts are more important due to their higher economic cost than the European heat waves with their higher human cost. Do you agree? if so, why is this?
I read a story last year where two girls of about 8 were kidnapped in different parts of the states at the same time. One was white from an affluent neighborhood and the other was from a poor area and black. The case of the white girl got plenty of media coverage and the other case none. The natural assertion is that race was an issue in deciding where the coverage went. However the article argued that the case of the white girl got the majority of the coverage for economic reasons. The affluent audiences had more in common with the white girl and hence were more likely to follow the story. They also had more money to spend, meaning that the networks were providing advertisers with a better product, and themselves larger profit.
What I was wondering is if you feel this is how news organizations should decide what goes to air? or is it just a reality that we have to accept.
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| Eurostyle Cybersociety |
| 08.23.03 (4:23 pm) [edit] |
Euro style Cyber society.
How should a twenty-first century virtual urban communal space be? And, how would it have to function to be most effective in terms of culture and communication?
These are a couple of questions Ostwald provokes in Virtual Urban Futures.
Between the time of the Renaissance and the age of virtual urban communities: the agora, WEM and Habitat, much has transpired. The transplanting of human activity into virtual form has occurred, now, we have to maintain and nurture both; human and non-human. How could a virtual urban community perfectly cater to the world’s varied cultures, religions, economies and politics? And, Is it possible?
To be productive and effective we would have to ensure that the virtual spaces for commerce and communication were somewhat more ethnocentric thus enticing one to experience its sense of passage and personal freedom in comfortable familiarity.
The Europeans would stay within the safety zone of their Cyber society and as with real society anyone wishing to enter must rightfully conform to the cultural, religious, economic and political trends; no doubt virtual imprisonment would follow if one were to disobey!
Not denying the glamour and effect ‘Disney space’ has on virtual communities; is it not already ethnocentric to assume that all cultures desire sparkly scenes, which colour the ‘non-space’ of virtual communities?
Environments geared toward meeting individual needs, whether for commerce or communication, would be hard to create. As our cultures change, expand and deteriorate, perhaps we should consider more tailored Cyber societies so as to ensure all have a place, a recognisable and familiar environment or perhaps we should consider creating a mythical place where everything is depicted as absolute perfection. Either way, whether we choose to accept it or not, the possibility of intercultural Cyber society being effective and productive, as its intended purpose, is going to be a long and arduous task. How can we create a dream virtual community when we as humans find it challenging to live on planet earth in peace and harmony with each other? Only if we were to sort out our earth bound troubles could we begin to rationally consider the intimate, scrupulous details of the mystical Cyber society.
Ref. Virtual Urban Futures. Micheal Ostwald (cyber culture reader)
|
|
|
| |
| Creating our own evolution!! |
| 08.23.03 (4:10 pm) [edit] |
Creating our own evolution!!
If we had the freedom to create our own evolution how would we react? How would we all sensibly deal with the remarkable opportunities to manipulate and design the structure of one’s body, or prolong life?
Obviously, if made fully open to the public, we would all no doubt look as our ideal and everything would be perfect. Perfect noses, model like figures - we would all be drop dead gorgeous… Imagine the body, no longer susceptible to disease or deterioration.
Being artificially preserved sounds like it could be worthwhile, yet as with most things there are more than likely to be positive and/or negative repercussions. Well articulated experimentation, over long periods of time will hopefully reveal the true likelihood of man being eternally supported and ‘run’.
On a final note, maintaining human autonomy could prove to be difficult for man; is it not through acquisition that we gain autonomy?
Tamara 24-08-03
|
|
|
| |
| technology or nature |
| 08.23.03 (4:42 am) [edit] |
Ruben has an interesting question - what is more a thread to humans: technology or nature.
In my opinion - human itself are the worst things which can happen to humans. If you think how many people are dying every day from nature catastrophes ? How many are dying because of technology ? And how many because of war and other humans ?
I think the last number is the biggest one. And even the people who have to suffer because of nature catastrophes - how many are caused by humans ? Not all ! But certainly some. Lets take the Aral Sea in Kazachstan. It has lost 2/3 of its volume because people took the wate out of the river. Now its only salt.
I think, the biggest thread are humans themself.
What do the other think ?
- Lars
|
|
|
| |
| control |
| 08.23.03 (4:30 am) [edit] |
Hi,
in reply to Tomo's post ..
Yep - you are right. Computer are not intelligent enough to control us at the moment. And I by myself do not think they will soon be able to do that. AI is just in the beginning and it takes a long time to go there. And because computer will never be able to create new algorithm I doubt if computer will ever be intelligent enough to control us.
But - and this is probably the same direction Tom wrote about - computers can be used to control us. And this is the frightening thing. Computer are not selfish (not yet at least) - but people are.
Did anybody of you see "changing lanes" ? This movie is about an accident between 2 guys and how this accident changed their whole life.
And one scene was, that the one guy (lets call him A) was able to set the bank account of the other guy (B) to zero - and the B needed the money to buy a flat for his family. A just knew somebody how was able to hack into the banking system.
And the problem is: this is really possible.
And because most of us do not know enough about it, we are not able to do something against it. Therefore - people can use computers if not to control our lives then at least to cause a lot of problems.
- Lars
|
|
|
| |
| gender games |
| 08.21.03 (10:45 pm) [edit] |
In reply to Ruben, I think that computer game companies probably just make a few token games for female users, but generally they will be quite aware that this is not their biggest market and so invest accordingly. I have always got the impression that males are FAR more interested in them than females. Of course females do still play, however in my own personal experience it’s the guys who have sat up all night playing Grand Theft Auto in my flats!
In my own playing experience, I generally liked the kids games, which I have also observed seem to be far less gender specific. Although it is a stereotype, ‘cute’ games like Super Mario 64 or Mario Cart were always the ones that my female friends and I played, while the guys were far more inclined to play shoot-em-ups and more advanced racing games. The exception to this was 007, which we all played on many different occasions during our high school years. Here and with the racing games it was always the competitive aspect of racing or shooting friends that was fun rather than the single player aspects, which I think again goes back to the different reasons people play games to begin with. Sometimes, as with us, it was more social, whereas single player games are of a longer duration and far easier to become ‘lost’ in.
Although it is my opinion that they are far more male-oriented, I have certainly been interested in games in the past – not ‘addicted’ though. I’ve seen addicted and it’s not good! And Dave… it is good to know that you are not addicted to games even though you fit into the category of male. I also agree that the reason for this is that you are probably shit. Further, I agree that it is the market that dictates the games, not female game designers. And no, I wouldn’t object to games such as BMXXX or whatever you were talking about. Who really cares, it is the same crap that you can see on the net or on tv, so what’s the difference with a game, especially since it will have a restricted rating anyway. Money money money. Males are a safer bet.
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| Merely a container for the latest technology… |
| 08.21.03 (9:58 pm) [edit] |
Merely a container for the latest technology…
Fancy swallowing a technological sculpture? Enough as it is that someone else can control the function of your body. The idea of hollowing out a body until it is nothing but a shell and inserting some technological components seems far-fetched, even more so does the idea of synthetic skin. From the outside it appears as though we want to create Cyborgs, but only controllable ones. Using the existing body as a shell, a container is innovative; yet, if they are reaching so far as to make synthetic skin, which absorbs oxygen through its pores and converts light into chemical nutrients, why bother starting with a human in the first place?
Would it not be easier to just create a whole human form with extended senses and functions beyond imagination? Who would know the difference? Maybe a point worth discussing.
Tamara 22-08-08
|
|
|
| |
| Stelarc- the body is “Obsolete” |
| 08.21.03 (9:54 pm) [edit] |
Empty the body… art is on its way in!
Cybernetic body art is an interesting phenomena of today’s artistic realm. The motivation for human self- discovery has taken on a new form. The artist’s way is almost unfathomable to the average man. We have no idea what they are up to while we work, eat and sleep in our restricted gravity, earth bound forms… Sterlac and MchLuhan, Cybernetic artists, see our Manifest Destiny in the stars, perceive the body as an object awaiting manipulation… the beginning, a tiny bit of icing on a large and expansive cake. These artists view humans in a strange and mysterious light; devoid of emotion, no longer do human feelings matter, there is more to life than life?
The philosophy of transcendence through technology deems the human form unimportant, dysfunctional and superfluous to the human of the future.
This seems a harsh comment; however, it’s at our doorstep and the key to unlock the mystery behind Cybernetic body space and mind is carefully being cut and crafted.
The only hesitation about delving into the world where all is objective is the fact that we would all be devoid of our habitual human emotion… would we all just become props, containers and vessels for wild artists to host sculptures?
The prospect of becoming a shell is daunting; on the other hand, the prospect of being a living piece of art for all to gaze upon is tempting.
The link to Stelarc video clip:
http://zed.cbc.ca/displayPopu... :evil:
Tamara 22-08-03 :lol:
|
|
|
| |
| Nature at it's best |
| 08.21.03 (9:04 pm) [edit] |
Most of you must have felt or at least heard about the earthquake that struck early this morning (22 August). Something my flat mate said got me thinking about nature vs technology. He said "It makes you realise how insignificant we actually are", we were discussing the violent forces of nature. We interact with machines every day, relying on them to help us through everyday life. Some worry about the birth of powerful AI systems, but I would say be worried about nature as it is far more powerful than anything on this planet. No machine is going to save us from natures destructive forces in the end. Though this is the age of technology, it cant change destructive nature for the better. We rely on technology to minimise the risks, not to escape them. What do you think, is technology or nature more of a threat to humans?
Ruben
|
|
|
| |
| looking | seeing | watching |
| 08.21.03 (8:52 pm) [edit] |
I've just got back from the art gallery. Lots of white walls. Big walls.
The Dirty Pixels exhibition is interesting. However I don't think I was quite in the mood for a gallery today. I could quote the brochure and pretend that it's my reflection on what I saw and felt, but no one needs my insincere rant. I'll wait until someone who actually has something to say on the topic does.
While I was there I also had a look at the Gary Blackman exhibition.
"Gary Blackman: Survey opens the shutter on fifty years' work by one of the 'quiet achievers' of New Zealand photography"
OK, so I got my brochure quote in. The thing I found really interesting was walking out of the gallery with his work, into a space that had seats over looking the Octagon. I had moved from looking at static, black and white images of Dunedin to watching Dunedin life unfold in front of my eyes. And because I was in a gallery, a building where you become accustomed to looking at what's in front of you and thinking about what it is you see, I treated this everyday scene in a different way than I would have in another location.
The people walking the streets were strangely interesting, tall and short, walking fast and slow, most walking with their eyes trained on the ground. The buildings were grey and grimy, lacking the contrast in light, which made them look so interesting in the photos. This was reality TV without the producers motivating the participants to do something more interesting. The way they were acting was real, mundane, everyday behaviour. I wonder what would happen if this view were to be projected in real time onto one of the walls within the gallery, how would the audience react? Would the use of technology in presenting this scene change the audiences' perception and treatment of it?
As I left the gallery it occurred to me that someone could be watching me from the gallery as I walked, staring at the ground. It made me paranoid.
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| is "God" a paraSITE? |
| 08.20.03 (11:36 pm) [edit] |
The Bible says "In the beginning there was the "word"". Physicists say that OUR beginning was a singularity, which became the Big Bang, 6 billion years ago.(which they have seen via radio telescopes). Is what began with a "word", "us" or something else?
Linguists say that the particular language we speak controls the way we think and what we think. Structuralist also say that words only refer to other words- language exists in total isolation to the "natural world"- The way a fish tank full of goldfish and snails exist in, but separate from the restaurant foyer.
At the Max Planck Institute, the gene, FOXP2, was the first definitively linked with human language. Researchers found that this gene mutated in an indivual human being 2000,000 years ago. The mutation spread to the entire human population. This mutation made us mutants speak and to move our face muscles expressively. Non speakers either failed to reproduce or were killed (by I wonder who?).
We are no more intelligent than we were 200,000 years ago. Then we were "knowing", now we are "clever". For eons the body and consciousness were undivided. Now we are lost in a maze of dualism- body and mind. Many of us have eating disorders!
Is our "mind" us? Or does our entire body and consciousness still reside in our body- as always?
Is "mind" something else, outside of us all. Is some parasite dreaming of cyber culture (as in Petri dish culture). Is "I" me?
(mad marc) :idea:
|
|
|
| |
| disembodiment through gaming |
| 08.20.03 (6:35 pm) [edit] |
I caught the end of 60 Minutes or 20/20 on television the other night discussing the current video game market. Although I did not catch the entire story, I heard some interesting points regarding the cultural implications of computer games on the user. The specific executive being interviewed worked for the computer company that make the popular game The Sims. According to their research, the average Sims player spends about 20 hours per week playing the game – a reasonably high amount of time for a mere average. He explained that the popularity of this, and other similar games, was due to the fact that players could be someone else for a while – leave their own reality and be part of a ‘better’ computer game life. He described his own experience of gaining the popularity equal to that of a real life New York City club owner within his virtual life – young, popular and respected – who, he questioned, wouldn’t want that?
The complex concept of disembodiment indeed seems to be one of the fundamental uses of games such as The Sims and cyberspace in general, and a reason why The Sims in the companies highest selling game ever. Yet it seems interesting that the predominant market for The Sims is women, when the game revolves around domesticity, family and many other mundane elements of ‘real’ life. How far are people really willing to escape reality and pre determined gender roles and actually become someone else without leaving their comfort zone?
Marshall, in his article Video and Computer Gaming, describes the principal genres of games to include simulation, role playing, strategy, adventure etc. it seems that recently games such as The Sims encompass multiple genres, surely expanding market possibilities as well as increasing potential game play. Perhaps it is this combination of elements that makes even games surrounding domestic life fun. I wonder if the ability to leave your own body for a while and embody another persona results in people making less effort to enjoy their real life. Escapism as in idea interests me, as I wonder how often people escape into games for no other reason than to avoid reality.
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| bang. |
| 08.20.03 (6:14 pm) [edit] |
just semi on the topic of cyborgs and machines running our lives,
found this on publicaddress.net
'The Slammer worm penetrated a private computer network at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January and disabled a safety monitoring system for nearly five hours, despite a belief by plant personnel that the network was protected by a firewall.'
kinda scary to think what coulda happened.
www.publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm#post622
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| catching-up conspiracy |
| 08.19.03 (10:02 pm) [edit] |
Some interesting posts. Control was a subject that stood out for me today, so my thoughts:
I really don't think we're controlled by computers. AI isn't up to much yet and I don't believe we're at all close to IA systems with any sort of sentience and probably will not be for some time. Computer systems are a tool of society and are increasingly depended upon to allow us to function in terms of communication, financially, socially, as consumers and much more. It’s this dependence upon technology which restricts us to varying degrees and brings with it implicit controls. The control comes from traditional societal structures and the technology tools are constantly evolving. The control comes from us.
Equally, restrictions, which feel like controls are often interface issues. Technology comes with it’s own language, which increasingly, you must have some understanding of to survive. That might seem a little dramatic but ignorance has long been an ally of power and yes I am a man of many clichés… but who cares: Knowledge is power, so if you want control, restrict knowledge. Burn books? A bit obvious, why not restrict access to information? Technology rather neatly takes care of that in a subtle fashion. Most of us have access to a huge array of information, but ask most people how it finds its way to the screen in front of them? That level and type of information is hidden to all but a few. HACK101 anybody. Something to think about perhaps… :arrow: Tomo
|
|
|
| |
| Who has the power? |
| 08.19.03 (6:01 pm) [edit] |
This is in relation to Lars's thoughts on humans being in-control of the machines. We all know about the black out that occured in America/Canada in the past week, well the machines were put out of action causing chaos amoungst the humans. People where put into make shift housing, food supplies went off, the economy was destroyed etc. It is obvious we rely on machines far to much, we 'feed' off the technology and if the machines die then we are put in a threatening primitive stiuation. It is in our nature to advance our 'tools' to satisfy our hunger for power/survival/egos. We started primative and have advanced so to think about going back to the days without power is too much for many people. We need our controlled relationship with machines to satisfy our laziness! I think a problem will arise if advanced AI is created, but thats another topic for discussion.
Ruben
|
|
|
| |
| The Pen is migtier than the sword |
| 08.19.03 (1:27 am) [edit] |
|
The pen is mightier than the sword
The Internet, what has it allowed us to create? One our most significant creations would have to be our electronic communities. An incredible concept, which changes our perceptions toward better understanding the construct of human activities.
Much can be read both in favour and against Virtual Commonality and the one thing which motivates us to continue building the virtual communities is our desire to seek commonality and fellowship in this ever changing world.
The are no boundaries to where one can go, yet as evident from Mitra’s writings in Virtual Commonality, conflicts arise when cross-cultural cross-posting takes place. Written abuse flown left right and centre, some threatening, some full of blasphemy and yelling (depicted on the Internet by capital letters) and that is why we now have no choice, we must continue with our computer-mediated communication so as to habitually protect our cultures and maintain our culture’s stance.
Internet could be seen as safety zone from which to fire verbal bullets; this clearly demonstrates the lack of global peace and commonality. Seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Ref. Notions of virtual commonality, Ananda Mitra (cyber culture reader).
Tamara
19-08-03
: :P
|
|
|
| |
| fe(male) gam(es)(ers)(ing) |
| 08.18.03 (7:00 pm) [edit] |
Thanks for specifically mentioning me Ruben and allowing me the honour of replying to your titillating post. In this most insightful rant you state:
'Do you think computer games are a more male thing or do/ have you found them just as addictive?'
You seem to be presuming here that all males find computer games addictive, I don’t doubt that males play a far larger number of computer games than females. But to suggest that all males can be catorgarised under the same playstation obsessive category as my munchey craving flatmate, is well, just plain mean :twisted:
I get kinda bored with computer games relatively quickly, I’m not sure why, I think the repetitive nature of dying and trying again bores me, and its probably got something to do with the fact that I’m generally shit at them.
A couple of years ago Media Design School in Auckland ran a campaign trying to attract more females into their 3D Computer animation program. (I’ve got a copy of the ads in a magazine somewhere, i’ll try to track it down) I remember it created a bit of a stir because the ads depicted typical modern day animated females (think Lara Croft) with copy something like “this is why we need more female animators”.
However i’m wondering how having more female animators would create games that are more female orianted, is it not the market that decides? Hollywood makes the big budget crap that they know people will go and watch. No matter how many directors in the industry would prefer to make ‘better’ movies the market dictates. or does it?
60 minutes had a segment last night on the gaming industry and the types of games the are coming out of Redmond and EA at the moment. One title BMXXXX, seemed to trouble the presenter a great deal, game content involving pimps and stripshows seemed a bit much for him. Did females have had a hand in developing such a game? do females play such a game? do females object to such a game? contray do what Ruuuuuben may believe I can’t answer these questions, however, I would suggest that females on the Boards of the Companies that produce these games don’t have any problems with them.
(i'm getting so cynical)
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| another example with planes |
| 08.18.03 (2:59 am) [edit] |
just for katie another plane-example, my computer-security-profess or in germany told my class.
(according to him, this story is true .. but I can imagine it is more like an example to illustrate something to us .. )
The american air force (could it be another nation ? :D ) tried to built a automatic navigation system for their war-jets (how to say this correct ?). They testet it, they crashed it, they simulatet a lot - they did whatever they could to reduce the risk of a system failure - the system worked fine and nothing could stop it from that.
Then the first flight startet. All wenn fine - but suddenly the plane turned 180 degrees (from top to bottom - the pilot was sitting with his head down).
What happened ? the jet crossed the equator and the navigation system could not cope with that because there was a leading sign failure.
:)
What do we learn from that ? Or - at least what told our professor he wants to teach us ?
Give everytime the possibility to switch the computer off and take the control over - because you cannot be sure if you made a failure - and a human can adopt to failures - computer can't.
This means - we should everytime allow ourself to control the machines - because we can adopt and we can develop new algorithm.
(btw - mathemathis proofed, that computer will never become as intelligent as humans .. because computer will never be able to develop new algorithm by themself - this just as a technical note .. :)
(lars)
|
|
|
| |
| who controls ? |
| 08.18.03 (2:48 am) [edit] |
The question, who really controls the world (the machines or the humans) which was discussed by Katie and Alice takes me back to (I know we talked already a lot about it ...) Matrix. This time Matrix 2.
I guess, everybody saw it. Do you remember the situation where Neo was down in the machine-room with his "president" ? What would happen, if they switch it off ? Did they really control these machines ?
Who controls whom ? I think - we humans control as long as we are not too lazy to take back the work the computers and machines are doing for us.
If we are ready to walk everywhere we want, if we are happy to write all texts without computer, if we do not mind to use no EFTPOS anymore - then we certainly control all.
But - be honest - who really saved power in new zealand this year ? Ok - Otago was better then Auckland. But still - I saw a lot of power waste. This means - even with the knowledge that it could cost a lot because there could be power cuts we were not able to surrender power and therefore the help of machines ..
(lars)
|
|
|
| |
| cards or keys... |
| 08.18.03 (1:32 am) [edit] |
I remember reading somewhere that males find it easier to translate space than females, for example males are generally better at reading maps etc.
Perhaps this is why males enjoy playing games designed for screens. Because (research suggests) females find it harder to conceive of an abstract space they cannot actually see they perhaps find it less involving. Whilst, males ability to translate a 2D representation into a 3D space makes the virtual space of a game easier to read.
Aside from this possible reason, personally I do not play games for a number of reasons...I don't enjoy shooting people, racing cars or flying planes. If I want to play a sport its usually because I want exercise and not for competitive reasons.
I used to enjoy adventure games although these are reasonably time consuming and once you have completed the quest its over. I also used to play platform games but there’s always one level that stumps me and the others get boring after awhile.
Games targeted at females like 'spice girl' and 'barbie' editions (I'm sure their out there) are targeted at only a narrow female audience and so hold little interest for me. No subjects come to mind as possible games topics for me. Even VR technologies hold little interest; hopefully I can enjoy 'physical reality' (the cheap one).
Games are also expensive and the ones I have played I played when I lived at home on the family computer.
Actually I will admit to playing solitaire last night on my flatmates computer, which I play with real cards too from time to time. Interestingly after 2 losses on the computer I gave up whereas when I play with cards I can go for ages without winning a game...go figure...
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| Games for Females? |
| 08.17.03 (8:03 pm) [edit] |
This is for all the females in our class so Dave you can reply, I wanted to know - is there lack of computer games written (especially console games) for females? Do you think computer games are a more male thing or do/have you found them just as addictive? I have read before that games are made to attract males as it would be a big risk for a company to produce a game targeted at the female population, would you agree with this and what kind of concepts would attract you more to games rather than the fighting/killing that nearly all console games possess?
Ruben
|
|
|
| |
| Cinematic Language |
| 08.17.03 (8:02 pm) [edit] |
Cinematic Language
The idea of deconstruction opens many interesting discussions. In Making Cyborgs, Making Humans, Pyle discusses deconstructive analysis as revealing the way by which the mechanical structure of language, sight and sound reflect our basic concept of the human and our willingness to accept the oppositions between human and machine.
With regard to language, it was asserted by Soviet cinema founder Lev Kulesov, that film must be interpreted at its most basic level as a language. Signs and symbols; cultural and real. Bringing language to its basic level in order to convey a clear meaning to its decoders.
Decoding the lightly encoded messages, identifying with it, breathing it, building a complicity with the object under consideration. However, the complexities involved in watching a film in another language are immense. Pure involvement is never quite the same regardless of proficiency in the second language. The interpretation then draws on cultural aspects of humanity. The use of sight and sound capitalise on global commonality, this creates a global reality.
The use of sound and sight in science fiction films have been built to evoke and develop a sub - conscious empathy; spectators are left to become automatically influenced by their cultural knowledge associated with the sounds and visions. This creates many interesting cultural and linguistic discussions. Looking at the impact on humans as they become more aware of the unstable possibility that what they are watching is emotionally provocative in a very human light. The use of body, hands, deep peering eyes full of emotion, as projected by Sarah Conner and Schwarzenegger Terminator in The Terminator. By drawing on the knowledge we already have of the world, films make us comfortable in that world by projecting the recognisable in an unrecognisable way.
These films, despite seemingly being unattached to our reality, aim to assert their space in reality, as reality through language, sight and sound; and shake up the questions man asks about the concerning or exciting (however one chooses to perceive it) possibilities embedded in our human future.
Ref. Making Cyborg, Making Humans, Forest Pyle (reader cyber culture)
18-08-03
Tamara :roll:
|
|
|
| |
| pain as a means of embodyment/disembodyment |
| 08.17.03 (7:17 pm) [edit] |
Sharp pain (like stubbing a toe) has the instant capacity to bring us into our body and into the present. Thoughts end instantly. There are only the overwhelming sensations.
In the book, “The Body in Pain, the making and unmaking of the World", Scarry says, "That pain is so frequently used as a symbolic substitute for death in the initiation rites of many tribes is surely attributable to an intuitive recognition that pain is the equivalent in felt-experience of what is unfeelable in death".
Does she mean overwhelming sensation without thought? Most meditation is aimed at ending the internal dialogue. Saddus (Indian holy men) can spend a lifetime trying to stop the incessant chatter, and not succeed. When we see someone standing in front of the TipTop Restaurant, talking out loud without an audience, we know that they are "mad". They are only externalizing their internal experience. However, their "sickness" is only that they are expressing what is almost universally experienced.
The pain involved in most body modification is rarely discussed but is unavoidable. Plastic surgery, piercing, tattooing, scarification, even wearing high heeled shoes, is painful. Stelarc's work must be painful. His ideas are painful. How could we be eviscerated without pain? The process of removing and adding organs and prothetics can only be done with knives, stitches, plates and bolts. (marc)
|
|
|
| |
| the needs of needs |
| 08.17.03 (1:43 am) [edit] |
Something Caro said near the start of semester got me thinking...
It went something like “we as humans are constantly trying to catch up to our own predictions on the progress of technology”.
We are constantly conceiving of new and amazing ideas of what technology will do next or what we could make it do, before we're able to conceive of what the introduction of such amazing developments will mean for our existing surroundings.
I always find it amusing when watching past Sci-Fi movies, set in a future not so far away from now. The depictions these films present, of post-industrial clutter, generally seem absurdly far fetched (probably something to do with Sci-Fi’s dystopic nature).
You'd think such bleak comments on our future would put humans off technological progression, but no it seems we still strive to push the potential of technology.
As Katie pointed out technology becomes increasing transparent the more we rely on it. I guess this has something to do with the pace at which 'old' technologies become obsolete. The needs for constant upgrades to our computer systems are only needed because we create the need (conscious or unconscious). Catering for the machines needs is in turn catering for our own needs as we rely on technology more and more.
Our growing reliance on technology produces the need for the testing of its limits and as a machine is only as good as its user/creator so to are the boundaries of technology as big as can be conceived.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| control |
| 08.16.03 (6:30 pm) [edit] |
I have been thinking about ideas of computer technology in relation to concepts of control. Lars example about the planes crashing due to human error was certainly interesting. The fact that pilots must now follow a computer system rather than a human, changes the question of will a network of AI start controlling humans, to what degree will AI continue to control humans.
I seems that more and more we come to rely on technology, often to the point where it becomes transparent and we don’t even pay attention until something goes wrong. I’m sure that the people involved in the power blackout in the North East United States and in Canada became aware of this this week – it is incredible how much technology has infiltrated our lives while we barely even notice. Yet ultimately, as long as humans create and programme the technology, as well as operating it and fixing it are we not controlling it? Are we really not just controlling a network of AI that in turn controls us? Who then, has ultimate control? When technology breaks down, do we not go back to manual methods of operation? Put it this was – if a planes controls loose power, who then does the pilot rely on?
(katie)
|
|
|
| |
| reality or mind games |
| 08.16.03 (3:51 am) [edit] |
I recently read an article on research into migraines, what causes them, the effects of them and how to remedy them.
Most recent research suggests that rather than being physical abnormalities or whatever previous scientists have suggested (I'm not too familiar with the terms), migraines may be the result of sensory overloads. By this I mean that when the brain of a migraine sufferer receives any oversized sensory stimulation it recognises the experience as pain rather than its appropriate sensory experience.
Thus the research often finds migraine sufferers as those with strong, sensitive sensory reactions. For example I get migraines, I also cannot handle spicy food nor woollen fabrics nor chocolate or other rich foods.
Anyway the point of this information is whilst reading the article I started thinking how it was possible for the brain to respond to a sensory experience it wasn't actually having. Is this what gives VR users, cyberspace surfers, gamers, hackers...etc the feeling of a reality???
Does their Cyber experience produce larger than normal sensory simulations that are mis-recognised by the brain and so translated into an experience that may resemble those of a reality that does not physically exist...
Well not being a brain surgeon I would hesitate to make the call but perhaps these findings provide some explanation into the constructible realities of virtual reality.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| Dark side of the MOOn (response to Katie) |
| 08.14.03 (10:12 pm) [edit] |
Yes, as Katie said I was raped, and as she correctly guessed this was not a physical occurrence but a single line of text in Lambda Moo. In reality nothing happened, some 16 year old goober in the states simply typed a sentence involving the words ‘brutally’ ‘anal’ and ‘rapes’ placing ‘Pantone549_Guest’ just before the full stop. I’d only been on for 5 minutes, I hadn’t given my self a description or invested time into a character. Which may be the reason I was so taken aback by the situation. I hadn’t removed my physical self from the character representing me in the Moo.
It surprised me that I was slightly shocked, not seeing your daughter in a porn movie shocked, but still surprised that a person would write such a thing to a total stranger. I could not imagine myself walking up to a stranger on the street and saying it. Maybe it was the opposite reason to me (as Katie pointed out, identifying myself with the character) that allowed Goober_boy to do/write what he did. Maybe his Lambda Moo alter ego, allowed him to do things that he felt he could not do/say in reality. Maybe with time (he was not a Guest) his character had developed in a different way to his real life image, maybe they had grown apart? or maybe he was just a psycho?
Speaking of psycho. In the name of research when we next MOOed as a group I decided to remove myself from my character. After wondering around with Ruben for a while i logged out as WebsafeColor#CC00CC_Guest (a lavender type colour) and logged myself back in under the alias of PinkyBluePurplewithahinto fGreen_Guest. This wasn’t me, honest! I must admit that having removed myself from the character, and the added knowledge that no one else knew who my character was, allowed me (or my persona) to easily run around terrorising (can you say that word on the internet) Ruben. I still don’t think I could have gone to the extent that Goober_boy did, but seeing Ruben run across the room to get Marc was fun anyway. Again I was surprised, this time with the ease with which I could separate myself from the character.
I guess that in time one of two things would happen. Firstly, a user could develop an even stronger sense of belonging to their character, their online persona and their off-line reality would be intertwined, so such an event that happened to me would have a stronger impact. Alternately i think that the two worlds would separate, ones virtual and real lives would exist in parallel without effecting each other, allowing a virtual character to develop unimpeded by social norms.
(the names of those involved in these events have been altered to protect their identity)
[dave]
I think I made up some words...sorry.
|
|
|
| |
| we love the machine- not our bodies |
| 08.14.03 (7:53 pm) [edit] |
In the partnership between human and computer, the blatant and subtle needs of both human and the machine must be catered for. New advances are constantly made on the computer side of the equation- faster chips, bigger and faster storage devices and better monitors. Computers have clean electricity, clean air, and a dry, vibration free environment.
On the human physiology side, little has changed in the last few hundred thousand years. The technological advances made in protecting the operator from OOS (wrist rests, footstools and ergonomic keyboards) are meagre in comparison to the attention given to enhancing and protecting the computer. The human part of the Cyborg should be treated with the same love as the machine side.
In "Cyborgology: Constructing the Knowledge of Cybernetic Organisms" -- four classes of cyborg are described:
1. “Cyborg technologies can be restorative, in that they restore lost functions and replace lost organs and limbs;
2. They can be normalising, in that they restore some creature to indistinguishable normality;
3. They can be ambiguously reconfiguring, creating posthuman creatures equal to but different from humans, like what one is now when interacting with other creatures in cyberspace or, in the future, the type of modifications proto-humans will undergo to live in space or under the sea having given up the comforts of terrestrial existence;
4. They can be enhancing, the aim of most military and industrial research, and what those with cyborg envy or even cyborgphilia fantasise. The latter category seeks to construct everything from factories controlled by a handful of "worker-pilots" and infantrymen in mind-controlled exoskeletons to the dream many computer scientists have-downloading their consciousness into immortal computers. (Gray, 1995)”
These dreams, fantasies and everyday realities are untenable if the human component of the cyborg has a nervous system and physical constitution that has been destroyed by inactivity, caffeine and junk food. Systems are only as robust as the weakest component. Perhaps a mantra for the 21st century could be “a sound mind in a sound body, elegantly interfaced with a sound machine.” Michael Jackson is a truer picture of the modern cyborg than Robocop or the Terminator. (marc)
|
|
|
| |
| this one time, at band camp... |
| 08.14.03 (5:33 pm) [edit] |
just a suggestion when adding images don't tick the:
"Use image as avatar?:" box
unless you want to place your nice little image at the start of every post, which may well be the look you are going for in which case feel free to put your nice little image at the start of every post...
:lol: [dave]
reply to katie is coming.
|
|
|
| |
| Meaningful computation !!! |
| 08.14.03 (12:07 am) [edit] |
Meaningful computation
Hans Moravec (LITA), believes the universe will be transformed into Cyberspace. Upon discussing this theory, many question have been raised, one of them being: How would we effectively adept humans to permanent minimum-energy quantum transactions of computation?
The mind boggles at the varied reality scenarios we could create and in fact are creating. Take for example Ashes to Ashes-Dance Driving, (An Interactive Immersive Sonic, Dan computer animation Environment), a virtual memorial dedicated to the Victims and survivors of September 11 or another current research project : Visualisation of the joint battlespace, (Air force research Lab, AFRL/IFB) in which battlespace management and training is immersive. Users will be able to navigate within the environment and concentrate on solving potential problems.
Optical, acoustical and chemical devices harnessing you , in charge of all of your senses and measuring all your actions? Hearing through a Robot’s ears and smelling through its chemical sensors?
All your senses of consciousness magnetised to the Robot’s location. You are strong, faster and equipped which richly enhanced senses. VR the other world unattached to any spot on the earth, no land values, stone nor wood but fragmented subjects and software. Logical linkages shaped by connectivity and bandwidth opposed to pages, motorways or door handles.
How would humans adapt if we were to be in cyberspace for longer stretches of time?
Does anyone want to try a sensory deprivation tank, with on skin sensation, in total darkness and silence?
Where you still have consistent sensory images and you may exist without your physical body, but never without the illusion of having one.
Our homebodies have 12 hours before we being to hallucinate as our mind seeks to make sense of it’s feeling of bodilessness. But, they are fast working on that problem. It seems the virtual world and rented artificial bodies (with which you can make contact with another body, feel weight, shape, texture and temperature) are sought after and worth the millions currently being invested in research.
Tamara 14-08-03 :lol:
|
|
|
| |
| Defining Cyberspace? |
| 08.13.03 (11:39 pm) [edit] |
Defining Cyberspace?
The term Cyberspace was created by science fiction writer William Gibson reflecting his perspective of “desperate and dystopic vision of near future”. Paranoia, pain and unhappiness, his first depiction of the space where nothing is forgotten and everything changes. The birth of the word allowed/allows many to interpret it as they see it, as they experience it. Benedikt stated that cyberspace is “a new universe, a parallel universe created and sustained by the world’s computer and communication lines”. The driver of the wheel being man and his restless desire to go further into space…A world in which global threads of knowledge, mystery, and alter-human agency breathe. Since its naming, cyberspace has been defined as “an infinite artificial world humans navigate in an information-based space”. Mention the world word cyberspace to a ‘common man’ and fear spreads across his face as he attempts to find words to describe that unknown place: shaped, molded, artificially intelligent, not naturally occurring, government run; the space invaders are coming!’ Regardless of man’s varied reactions to cyberspaces, the fact remains, whether we like it or not, cyberspace advance human culture, cyberspace frees us from global silence, we can create, build, and destroy as we like… with of course the exception of life. Human can access the dimension through any computer linked into the system from any location throughout the globe. In 1972 Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science, described the world as being made of three interconnected worlds; the material/physical world, the conscious and subconscious world (feeling& thought) and the abstract informative-cyberspace. Cyberspace is the mythical, the fictitious realm, the passageway that demonstrates technological advances. Culture tries to keep up with, describe and define this evolving technology. In a way cyberspace is organic, it creates technology, which may be seen as nothing more and nothing less than stage of all evaluation. The ultimate computer-human interface, however one defines it, is clearly both the strangest and most radically innovative of today’s computer developments. An optical dream capable of producing alter-human effects (the matrix) to warp the mind and expand the principle of human logic.
Tamara 14-08-03 :D
|
|
|
| |
| Virtual reality solution for oil and gas |
| 08.13.03 (11:06 pm) [edit] |
Virtual reality solution for oil and gas
[image]desi402_910751320.jpg[/image]
Virtual reality is being used more and more. Virtual reality is now being used for finding oil and gas both on land and at sea. 3D-VR technology system is basically a big computer screen in a dark room, where the users are immersed in VR and perceive a simulated environment by means of special human-computer interface equipment. They navigate with a handheld device to operate the system where they use gestures like walking, pointing, and moving within the VR environment to navigate through VR representations of the earth’s structure, in their search for oil. Wearing infrared glasses gives the experience of virtual reality.
This system supersedes a single PC screen where more users can be involved in discussions and decision making. Technical meetings relating to a project can be held on the spot which make VR cost effective as well as time saving. One example was when BP (British Petroleum) saved $100m in one morning by using visualisation. They made all their mistakes on the computer first.
3D-VR is designed to serve as a problem solver. It helps the users to explore and see things in complex detail that they would not be able to see in real life. In this way the company reduces the risk of losing millions of dollars trying to accomplish what was before, impossible to achieve.
By using 3D-virtual reality software, the company is cutting down the risk and uncertainty associated with drilling, which will in turn reduce the environment impact, because proper planning can take place before the drilling or pipelines are built. Data is collected by seismic means then simulated models of the project can be constructed before any money is outlaid. The implications of project safety can also be addressed at this point.
In this new concept, staff interacts with VR environment as if it were reality. They become excited and absorbed in the planning stages of a project, because the concept is ‘visual’ and the speed with which a project can be planned is phenomenal!
VR has become part of our culture and life. It makes one wonder if society will soon be ruled by this artificial reality. !!
[url=http://www.sgi.com/features/2...] click[/url]
Tamara 14-08-03
|
|
|
| |
| body vs mind vs technology |
| 08.12.03 (3:57 pm) [edit] |
'Loosing' ones body and extending ones mind into cyberspace, crafting oneself an identity that mat not be possible/acceptable (for whatever reason), interacting with other such identities, flying helicopters, exploring the air-conditioning vents, floating in bubbles...and all those other fun things one does during a session of LambdaMOO. What for us maybe simply a session, for others maybe a reality.
The possibility of discarding ones 'dead flesh surrounding the active mind' - doing away with the ones physical attributes the good the bad and the ugly - seems ideal. No longer will the body we have been cursed to carry around for the rest of or lives (in most cases) hinder the mind it carries...who wouldn't want a piece of that??
It seems to me however, in my relatively limited and financially restricted experience of computer technology, that the body will always be intrinsically tied to ones experiences in cyberspace and VR technologies. How else do I partake in LambdaMOO, through the keyboard. The Balsamo article (I think, I don't have the book beside me) talks of the hi-tech equipment needed to explore the realms of VR. When one plays a computer game it is usually through a controller connected to the box connected to the screen.
The idea that the 'freedom of cyberspace' - to loose the dead meat, be and do what you want - is a utopic space of unlimited possibilities provides some problems. Those who are unfamiliar with technology, unable to afford technology, those who cannot type as fast!!! and can't spell, or those who are not coordinated with a game controller are at a distinct disadvantage in a space that promises so many advantages.
Whilst cyberspace often suggests that the problems experienced in a physical reality are no longer of consequence within its realm, it seems that even a purpose built playground of the mind cannot escape the prevalence of the body.
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| Have we all been joined up to some crazy death-cult? |
| 08.11.03 (5:45 pm) [edit] |
Have we all been signed up to some crazy death-cult? It is not some little nutcase clique in a remote, Utah farm house. It is world-wide and being preached on TV, the radio the print media- everywhere. All of our heros, presidents, popes, movie stars etc. are signed up CyberCult-Priests. Someone tell me if I've got this right- A premise of 21st Century culture is-
This world (Earth) and our bodies are illusions, they don't really exist. "Substantial" Reality is in cyberspace, inside a computer network. It is just a matter of time before Lord Bill Gates builds a fast enough network and a clever enough program. Our bodies and our planet can turn to shit because it doesn't matter. (they are illusions or encumberances to our real cyber selves.) Just in case our bodies and Earth have any residual value, we can fix them or preserve them with Genetic Engineering- don't worry, it is all covered!!!
I wonder if there is a parallel between present time and the Middle Ages (1300-1500) in Europe during the Plague Years. Some communities lost 90% of their population from disease. Crowds of Flagellants wandered around beating and mutilating themselves. They thought it was the end of the world.
Today our Earth physical environment is imploding. Many non-human populations are being decimated or wiped out- The oceans are empty, world temperatures are at record highs- Humans are piercing their bodies- Body mutilation (like tongue splitting) is considered a "fashion statement". During the 1300's, people were waiting to be wisked away to "Heaven". Now we are off to cyberspace. Same place, same impulse.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo". (Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, by Karl Marx)
In 1849, Marx said that Religion was "the opium for the working class", a tool to keep the workers enslaved and docile. Today, cyberspace is the heroin for all humanity. What is going to happen to our stuptified bodies while we are cavorting around inside the Machine? We probably don't want to know.
"Forgetting about the body is an old Cartsian trick, one that has unpleasant consequences... upon those whose labour the act of forgetting the body is founded". (A.R. Stone, p525)
(marc)
:shock:
|
|
|
| |
| PC reality |
| 08.10.03 (8:07 pm) [edit] |
I was reading the Deborah Lupton reading “The Embodied Computer User”. Among other topics, it discusses the way in which humans can relate to their computers emotionally and how the way that we interact with our computers as subjects blurs lines between the embodied self and the PC. I found the description of the body as ‘meat’ rather disconcerting, especially the idea that these organic bodies that need washed, fed and sleep are a hindrance to experiencing the ‘idealized’ virtual body which is considered clean, pure and uncontaminated. This seems creepy. It seriously scares me that with reference to a computer, people could consider their bodies as a hindrance – something stopping them from living a cyborg-type existence. When the idea of cyberspace can be considered as an alternative to ‘real life’ does this not take the concept too far? To me, cyberspace means checking my e-mails and researching for information on the net. I see it as a part of the reality in which I live – it is a tool for me to use as opposed to a world in itself.
Speaking of disconcerting, when Dave walked into class on Thursday proclaiming “I got raped!” with a beaming smile on his face, I was confused to say the least. He continued on about how he had been sitting in a hot-tub and drinking beer when the incident occurred. By now it was clear that he was talking about LamdaMOO and not an unfortunate occurrence in his own life (thank goodness!). I think that this emphasizes the point the Lupton was discussing in the article regarding the embodied self and the PC as no longer being separate and easily definable concepts. Dave was referring to his experience as a fictional character within a computer game ‘reality’ while still describing his character in first person. I presume this was because in many ways it was a representation of himself he was projecting, which contributed to his annoyance and shock that this had happened to ‘him’. The lines between embodied Dave and the virtual reality world in which he was discussing certainly seemed blurred to me on Thursday morning, let me tell you!
I wonder what Dave thinks…..
(Katie)
|
|
|
| |
| theres some thing in us it dont have no name |
| 08.07.03 (7:37 pm) [edit] |
This is from "Riddley Walker" by Russel Hoban (1980, pp6-7). It is set about 1000 years in a future in post-Apocalyptic Cambridge England. It rains constantly. I am extending from Ruben's previous post. The idea that we can escape our "dying planet to the virtual "inner space" of the computer" (D. Lupton quoting Morse, p 479, CC Reader) is surprisingly common. Where is that thought coming from?- It is terrifyingly inhuman (alien?)! Earth is our home. What ever is "existing" in cyberspace, it is not us- even if it says it is. We are being impersonated by an evil trickster- an omnipotent "Mr. Bungle" (a Rape in Cyberspace).
Lorna (a 'wise-woman') speaks directly to the situation. She talks to Riddley (adolescent boy/hero) in the primative pidgen english of a post information-age future.
"Lorna said to me, 'You know Riddley theres some thing in us it dont have no name.'
I said, 'What thing is that?'
She said, 'Its some kind of thing it aint us but yet its in us. Its looking out thru our eye hoals. May be you don’t take no noatis of it only some times. Say you get woak up suddn in the middl of the nite.1 minim youre a sleap and the nex youre on your feet with a spear in your han. Wel it wernt you put that spear in your han it wer that other thing whats looking out thru your eye hoals. It aint you nor it don’t even know your name. Its in us lorn and loan and sheltering how it can'.
I said, 'If its in every 1 of us theres moren 1 of it theres got to be manying theres got to be a millying and mor.'
Lorna said, ' Wel there is a millying and mor.'
I said, 'Wel if theres such a manying of it whys it lorn then whys it loan?'
She said, 'Becaws the manying and the millying its all 1 thing it don’t have nothing to gether with. You look at lykens on a stoan its all them tiny manyings of it and may be each part of it myt think its sepert only we can see its all 1 thing. That’s how it is with what we are its all 1 girt big thing and divvyt up amongst the many. Its all 1 girt thing bigger nor the worl and lorn and loan and oansome. Tremmering it is and feart. It puts us on like we put on our cloes. Some times we don’t fit. Some times it cant fynd the arm hoals and it tears us a part. I don’t think I took all that much noatis of it when I ben yung. Now Im old I noatis it mor. It don’t realy like to put me on no mor. Every morning I can feal how its tiret of me and readying to throw me a way. Iwl tel you some thing Riddley and keap this in memberment. What ever it is we dont come natural to it.'
I said, 'Lorna I dont know what you mean.'
She said, 'We aint a naturel part of it. We dint begin when it begun we dint begin where it begun. It ben here befor us nor I dont know what we are to it. May be weare jus only sickness and a feaver to it or boyls on the arse of it. I dont know. Now lissen what Im going to tel you Riddley. It thinks us but it dont think like us. It dont think the way we think. Plus like I said befor its afeart.”
I said “Whats it afeart of?'
She said, 'Its afeart of being beartht.'
I said, 'How can that be? You said it ben here befor us. If it ben here all this time it musve ben beartht some time.'
She said, 'No it aint ben beartht it never does get beartht its all ways in the woom of things its all ways on the road.'” (marc)
|
|
|
| |
| Mind control |
| 08.07.03 (3:33 pm) [edit] |
In Deborah Luptons article on "The embodied Computer/User" I found the idea of the body as the "meat, dead flesh that surrounds the active mind" interesting. The mind escapes the host body and is drawn into a relationship with computer technology. It is interesting that the body is the wedge in this relationship as the body requires tendering, breaking the bond between the mind and computer. What would happen if the body didn’t need care, would we ever leave the screen? It would allow the user to permantly be ‘together’ with the machine. When I play a computer game I lose track of time as my mind locks into the game, what if my body didn’t need feeding etc would I be forever in the game (till I finished it)?
ruben
|
|
|
| |
| lambdamoo commands |
| 08.06.03 (6:31 pm) [edit] |
:roll: I found this list of lambdamoo commands on the internet. Could help us get around.
http://www.english.upenn.edu/" title="http://www.english.upenn.edu/" target="_blank"http://www.english.upenn.edu/...~afilreis/88/moo-glossary .html
(marc)
|
|
|
| |
| Interfaces :>) |
| 08.05.03 (6:12 pm) [edit] |
Interfaces ?Human-computer interfaces ?HCI?:
?How does this affect the functioning of culture in general and language in particular?
?The screen and the user?, discusses the key element of the modern interface- the computer interfaces and the older culture form languages. The ?traditional language? started to disintegrate. This shows how culture, past and present, came to be filtered through a computer with its particular human-computer interface. Humans started using a new way of language to communicate with each other. These are the txt message language or the chatting language for example. If you look at how people whose first language is not English, they have created a cultural communication code system by using numbers and alphabet to represent the letter that doesn?t exist on the western key board. To communicate with each other, they decided to use the numbers on the key board to represent the letters that don?t exist in the English alphabet.
For example:
Number 3= [image]desi402_404176624.jpg[/image]
HCI started to be used as an input/output system for communicating. By the 21st century humans are starting to lose the traditional communication language like handwriting and written language, which in the end, shows how a culture started to be filtered through computer interfaces by using code language to communicate. The internet started to be used by people in general for communication, to chat, send E-mails and search the net for information. No longer was it just a business requirement to own a computer, they are being used by the whole community.
Hi-tech interfaces are being used to store human memory and experiences in the form of hierarchical databases. The computer is no longer just a screen; it?s a tool that permits users to input and receive information. It is a system that supports user input and output in various ways. User input could use components such as speech, gesture recognition or text without need to be visual. In this way physical boundaries are broken.
Today?s society is media oriented by new technology. Human survival relies on the hi-tech systems of today to exist. For example medical technology, like the construction of artificial limbs or implants and medical equipment in hospitals. These show the interface between the human-machine. Society has become technology driven with all its ethical and social implications. A cyborg has been created by the fusion of machine and human.
Tamara 7-08-03 :D
|
|
|
| |
| of interest perhaps? |
| 08.05.03 (3:27 pm) [edit] |
The DPAG has an exhibition starting on the 16th of august called "dirty pixels" which may be relevant...
""Dirty Pixels
A multi-media group exhibition of works, which explore the impact of digital culture on contemporary artistic practice.
An Artspace touring exhibition with support from Creative New Zealand.
16 August - 5 October 2003""
(alice)
|
|
|
| |
| ummm... |
| 08.04.03 (8:19 pm) [edit] |
So I finally got round to writing something, I've been scared off up to now by the highly intellectual dual that Marc and Ruben have been having.:)
[image]desi402_1049651708 .jpg[/image]
Lavender_Guest sulks in the corner
Anyway there was a kinda interesting article in the ODT on Saturday about the use of new technology in 'flash mobbing'. Flash Mobbing is this crazy ass thing that involves the organization via email, texting and the web of large groups of random people, meeting at a set place and time. One example involved 100 random people meeting at Macy's, gathering around a $10 000 rug and discussing weather to collectively purchase it as a love rug for their commune, deciding it wasn't quite right and dispersing after 10 minutes. Another example had 250 strangers standing on the balcony of the Hyatt hotel, bursting into 15 sec of unexplained applause than heading on their way.
I found a few things in this interesting; firstly the share randomness of it all was kinda interesting. Secondly the way the technology allowed the a community to develop by the forwarding of emails and the like, and the way this community was brought together by no particular common interest or reason (I've heard of similar groups forming for protests etc, but never just for the hell of it). And finally the way other new tech, such as camera phones are used to record the reaction of bystanders (which seems to the point of it all) for instant feedback to the web where it all started.
Unlike communities such as LamdaMOO, this is a community found each other online but the goal is some kind of physical reality (make sense in my head). Speaking of LamdaMOO, I found this LONG but interesting article titled 'A Rape in Cyberspace' ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/Villag eVoice.txt it is a slightly disturbing account of the realties of an online community and how virtual communities are not immune from the shit of a normal society.
This page http://www.techtv.com/screens...,24330,3388608,00.html has some information from the guy who developed LamdaMOO on its evolution.
does it annoy anyone else how the dates on this this are all that crapy american format? ok i'm over it.
[dave]
|
|
|
| |
| parasites, zombies, vampires and aliens |
| 08.02.03 (12:26 am) [edit] |
We imagine that our minds and bodies are discrete, pure and whole. We "do this" or "think that" or" believe in something else". Not nescessarily. When we get the flu, the flu virus moves in and takes over some of the functions of our body. We get a snotty nose and cough and sneeze. The virus directs us to cough and sneeze so that it can spread to other hosts. Our nasel passages are its international airport- destination, anyone near by. They have snatched our bodies.
The Gordian worm (Nematomorpha) is a parasitic worm that infects crickets and grasshoppers. The Gordian Worm grows inside the host insect and then make the insect throw itself into a body of water where the worm imerges for the next cycle of its life (the insect dies). They have been blamed for the extinction of the Rocky Mountain Grasshopper. They don't care about their host.
What I am wondering and suggesting is that the part of us that considers our body to be a "piece of meat" and wants to exist online in cyberspace- may not be us at all, but some kind of unidentified parasite that just chose humans as a host. (there are tons of things that live inside us already). What ever is driving us does not care about the rainforests, global warming or the whales. It doesn't care if the oil runs out. Maybe its next life cycle is in computers and cyberspace. Maybe what ever it is (speculation on my part) will just abandon us like the drowned and eaten out shell of the host grasshopper once it does not need us anymore.
It is common knowledge that our behavior is insane and leading to the immenent oblivion for our species. Maybe we are really just a bunch of playful monkeys that have been infected by some awful parasite that doesn't care about us. Maybe that parasite is called - "language". (marc)
|
|
|
| |
| A bad influence? |
| 08.01.03 (10:37 pm) [edit] |
Can what we view make us believe that it is real or true? I am talking about the relation in which some people blame tv, computer games etc for a persons actions - for example a student going on a shooting rampage though a high school. Can the tv etc put our mind in such a state that we would do things we knew were wrong? Surely people know what they are viewing and the difference between the reality and non reality! I think it is bullsh#t that someone can be so influenced by a movie or game that they would do something stupid, unless the chemicals in their head are unstable I would say a there would always be a more reasonable answer. We may get memories of what we viewed but we also have known the wrongs and rights much longer.
Ruben
|
|
|
| |
|
|
