There will be no new blog post this week because Professor Mark Winokur wants us to use the time we would normally spend writing one to alternatively prepare and study for this weeks midterm exam.
For class this week, we just read Nakamura's article Digitizing Race. While it proved to be an insightful read and made for a lively presentation, I really have nothing else to add on it as it was pretty straight forward. Plus, because of the midterm he said don't worry about writing anything on the article since we don't have a blog due this week.
Next week, I will return with another traditionally full length entry on topics such as digital communities and identities as well as social networking. I would tell whoever is reading this to wish me luck, but I doubt I will need it!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Inside Computing and the Uncanny Valley
This week's blog post is in response to Turing's article Computing Machinery and Inelligence and Mori's article on The Uncanny Valley.
Both these articles are fairly short reads, which is great for me this week because I had to do a lot more reading to finish a literature review for a big group research paper in another class. For its length, Turig's piece seemed quite densely packed with information. Still, Turig does a fine job giving the reader some insight into the process of digital computing as a mindless machine views it even if the examples he used seemed a little bit far fetched.
For two pages, Mori's piece also turned out to be an engaging and fascinating read. Now, the "uncanny valley" is a concept which I already have some vague passing familiarity with as I've read several CRACKED.com articles on the subject already. However, this piece does raise one interesting question for me. Are we still dipping into "the uncanny valley" if we are using it to help people?
According to my own completely subjective view of where "the uncanny valley" begins, we don't really get into it until we stop using things like robotics and prosthetics to help others live more fulfilling and empowering lives and until we use them to create a full fledged humanoid form.
For instance, creating prosthetic robotic limbs for a war veteran doesn't quite bring us into the "uncanny valley" to me. That would just be an arm or a leg and not a full human figure. Also, the vet would truly appreciate this as it would allow him to continue his life as he once knew it with renewed vigor and serves as an inspiration of others, I would imagine. However, building a fully functional human robot just because you can or just to see how close you can get it to the true human form or true human companionship...now, THAT hurtles us straight on head first into the valley if you ask me.
I leave you now with this CRACKED piece explaining the whole concept of the "monkeysphere" which I had bought up in class in case you would like to learn more about it. Have a great week and I hope you enjoyed reading this post just as much as I enjoyed writing it!
Both these articles are fairly short reads, which is great for me this week because I had to do a lot more reading to finish a literature review for a big group research paper in another class. For its length, Turig's piece seemed quite densely packed with information. Still, Turig does a fine job giving the reader some insight into the process of digital computing as a mindless machine views it even if the examples he used seemed a little bit far fetched.
For two pages, Mori's piece also turned out to be an engaging and fascinating read. Now, the "uncanny valley" is a concept which I already have some vague passing familiarity with as I've read several CRACKED.com articles on the subject already. However, this piece does raise one interesting question for me. Are we still dipping into "the uncanny valley" if we are using it to help people?
According to my own completely subjective view of where "the uncanny valley" begins, we don't really get into it until we stop using things like robotics and prosthetics to help others live more fulfilling and empowering lives and until we use them to create a full fledged humanoid form.
For instance, creating prosthetic robotic limbs for a war veteran doesn't quite bring us into the "uncanny valley" to me. That would just be an arm or a leg and not a full human figure. Also, the vet would truly appreciate this as it would allow him to continue his life as he once knew it with renewed vigor and serves as an inspiration of others, I would imagine. However, building a fully functional human robot just because you can or just to see how close you can get it to the true human form or true human companionship...now, THAT hurtles us straight on head first into the valley if you ask me.
I leave you now with this CRACKED piece explaining the whole concept of the "monkeysphere" which I had bought up in class in case you would like to learn more about it. Have a great week and I hope you enjoyed reading this post just as much as I enjoyed writing it!
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Inside My New Website and Old Blog
In my Digital Journalism class with Professor Stevens, he recently had us doing exercise in class writing HTML code so we could create our own website for his class. Even though this assignment isn't due for another week, I've already finished mine. Also, I found my old blog that I had to do for an assignment in my Contemporary Mass Media class two years ago. I may start updating this again, but I am definitely adding a link to this on the site! See you next Tuesday with a new Info Tech post!
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Inside The Internet's History and Cyber Identities
This blog post is in response to the O'Regan article The Internet Revolution as well as Bell's article Identities In Cyberculture. Obviously, these articles have very little to do with each other, but they proved to be fascinating reads nonetheless.
Most of Regan's article I was already familiar with from doing background research for my groups presentation on the history of the internet tomorrow (as well as a lecture from my Digital Journalism class) but I enjoyed reading it anyway.
However, one thing this article mentioned was that the development of the internet could be traced all the way back to the 1940s when scientist Vanevar Bush began work on an automated network to solve differential equations for the Us Navy. This is an intriguing development, but it seems like something that isn't quite relevant enough to be included in our presentation. The 1960s DARPA/ARPANET era turned up several times in our research but this is the first I've read the name Vanevar Bush in reading about the development of the internet.
Other than that, this piece really laid out a nice timeline of the history of the internet in a way that mirrors it's developments as I remember reading and hearing about them in various news media when they happened. It was really relevant to me and I liked that.
Bell's piece was also intriguing in its own way. However, I think it would've made a better supplemental read to the previous week when we were learning of the concept of the panopticon. I say this because Bell's reading dealt mostly with identities people assume online and it reminded me of my comments during the panopticon lecture (as well as from last week's blog entry) about how each of us constructs our own panopticon online in that we each allow all of humanity a certain amount of surveillance in our lives and they in turn can comment on what we are doing. This could influence people to alter how they present themselves online as well.
Rather than raising an entirely new point form this week's readings, I would like to direct your attention to another reading from my Digital Journalism class that I think you might find to be quite interesting. This is a piece written by Robert Capps or Wired magazine. It was published about two and a half years ago and is entitled The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine. It is about how we as Americans have been slowly sacrificing quality and clarity in our digital media for cheap convenience. As long as we can take pictures, listen to music and upload video to the internet in real time, the low quality and relative simplicity of it all is merely "good enough" for us. I highly recommend reading this.
Well, since I have nothing else this week, I will simply conclude by saying that I hope you enjoy my presentation tomorrow...or hope you did previously enjoy it...just regardless of when you happen to be reading this I hope you thought my presentation was great!
Most of Regan's article I was already familiar with from doing background research for my groups presentation on the history of the internet tomorrow (as well as a lecture from my Digital Journalism class) but I enjoyed reading it anyway.
However, one thing this article mentioned was that the development of the internet could be traced all the way back to the 1940s when scientist Vanevar Bush began work on an automated network to solve differential equations for the Us Navy. This is an intriguing development, but it seems like something that isn't quite relevant enough to be included in our presentation. The 1960s DARPA/ARPANET era turned up several times in our research but this is the first I've read the name Vanevar Bush in reading about the development of the internet.
Other than that, this piece really laid out a nice timeline of the history of the internet in a way that mirrors it's developments as I remember reading and hearing about them in various news media when they happened. It was really relevant to me and I liked that.
Bell's piece was also intriguing in its own way. However, I think it would've made a better supplemental read to the previous week when we were learning of the concept of the panopticon. I say this because Bell's reading dealt mostly with identities people assume online and it reminded me of my comments during the panopticon lecture (as well as from last week's blog entry) about how each of us constructs our own panopticon online in that we each allow all of humanity a certain amount of surveillance in our lives and they in turn can comment on what we are doing. This could influence people to alter how they present themselves online as well.
Rather than raising an entirely new point form this week's readings, I would like to direct your attention to another reading from my Digital Journalism class that I think you might find to be quite interesting. This is a piece written by Robert Capps or Wired magazine. It was published about two and a half years ago and is entitled The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine. It is about how we as Americans have been slowly sacrificing quality and clarity in our digital media for cheap convenience. As long as we can take pictures, listen to music and upload video to the internet in real time, the low quality and relative simplicity of it all is merely "good enough" for us. I highly recommend reading this.
Well, since I have nothing else this week, I will simply conclude by saying that I hope you enjoy my presentation tomorrow...or hope you did previously enjoy it...just regardless of when you happen to be reading this I hope you thought my presentation was great!
Monday, February 4, 2013
Inside Digital Panopticism
This week's blog post is in response to Michel Foucault's piece on Panopticism as well as a social capital blog entry concerning social media and the "Arab Spring". Both pieces were very interesting and thorough even if Foucault's lost some focus toward the end with the discussion of Julius Ceaser. I particularly liked the Arab spring piece as it was an expert examination on the role of government in regulating the internet. Of course, every country has a different take on the subject but it's good to read about a foreign country where the internet is a little bit more controlled and restricted than here in the US. It's even better to read about how their citizens are actively trying to change it. I had previously done some research on the "Arab spring" when it was actually in the news a couple of years ago and incorporated it into my application essay for the old journalism school here at CU. Although they said it the topicality of it at the time made it a really strong essay, I didn't get in until they completely changed the SJMC and reopened it just last year. Even though I would say I'm somewhat familiar with the subject of the Arab Spring, this blog post uncovered some facts I previously hadn't seen.
Getting back to Foucault's "panopticism", I would say it's an interesting metaphorical concept to apply to 21st century life. It still holds up and is still relevant to all of us, however I think today's lecture in class did a better job of getting the point across and defining the concept to me. It had relevant examples to student life and was more engaging than a straight dry reading of the definitions. The lecture made the concept seem more applicable to all of us, which is important because it certainly is more and more relevant to life in this digital age than ever.
Rather than raise an entirely new point based off these readings, I would like to restate a point I made in class earlier today and elaborate on it further. The concept of "panopticism" is roughly defined as being monitored under surveillance of some governing body forcing one to obey their set of rules or face some form of reprimanding. This concept can be seen in action anywhere from prisons to workplaces to classrooms to even home life and even on the internet. However, the internet is where it gets a little bit tricky.
Everywhere else, the surveillance and governing bodies have already been put in place for you (teachers, parents, employers, wardens, etc.) and so has the amount of surveillance access they might have over you. For example, you're only under a teacher's surveillance when you attend their class, but you can't be under your parent's surveillance during this time because you're not at home. When you're at home, your teachers don't have surveillance over you as you're not in their class and they don't live with you at home. If you're in prison, the wardens and the guards most likely have surveillance access to you at all hours as long as you're there. On the internet, virtually anybody on earth has some surveillance access to you at any given time. This could be close friends of your with whom you interact with in real life or complete strangers from all around the globe depending on the setting and context. However, you ARE completely in control of how much surveillance access others have over you in this case.
Social media gives those one loosely defines as "friends" surveillance access to what you're doing and where you might be doing it at any given moment of the day. Still, you have the ability to post as many or as few social media updates as you may see fit. Therefore, you control how much surveillance your closest friends have into your daily life. One who goes on Twitter every week to post Instargam photos of all their meals, give their location on FourSquare about 27 times in a day and then go on Facebook and post roughly 400 photos from their weekend get together provides people more surveillance than one who just goes to their social media outlets only when they have something new or witty or important to share. Video services ara whole other story entirely. A person who is running a 24 hour webcam into their own apartment is obviously giving us more surveillance than someone who uploads videos of themselves to YouTube every so often as YouTube clips may be moment frozen in a specific time frame, but anyone can still see them anywhere and gain some insight into your life from them.
Also, the definition of "punishment" is a bit looser online than in other forms of panopticism. Your online friends can offer their own comments on whatever you may post whether they praise you, judge you, shame you or even attempt to offer some of their own constructive criticism. However, they have no real power to punish you merely via social networking portals. Still, you can take their words to heart or you can completely ignore them. However, those who run whatever site you're on still have some power to delete your content or ban you from ever using their site again entirely. In that case, it would still be partly other's responsibility to report you if they find you offensive to their own sensibilities and it would partly be on you to obey the rules and guidelines and codes of behavior of said site so that you don't post anything that might get you reported or kicked out.
Everyone has a different amount of surveillance into their lives that they are willing to give others total access to. In this era where social networking is all the rage, everyone is building their own digital panopticon to fit their own needs and desires. This may be the first and only era in human history where such a feat could be possible, albeit in a less tangible medium. What do you think?
Getting back to Foucault's "panopticism", I would say it's an interesting metaphorical concept to apply to 21st century life. It still holds up and is still relevant to all of us, however I think today's lecture in class did a better job of getting the point across and defining the concept to me. It had relevant examples to student life and was more engaging than a straight dry reading of the definitions. The lecture made the concept seem more applicable to all of us, which is important because it certainly is more and more relevant to life in this digital age than ever.
Rather than raise an entirely new point based off these readings, I would like to restate a point I made in class earlier today and elaborate on it further. The concept of "panopticism" is roughly defined as being monitored under surveillance of some governing body forcing one to obey their set of rules or face some form of reprimanding. This concept can be seen in action anywhere from prisons to workplaces to classrooms to even home life and even on the internet. However, the internet is where it gets a little bit tricky.
Everywhere else, the surveillance and governing bodies have already been put in place for you (teachers, parents, employers, wardens, etc.) and so has the amount of surveillance access they might have over you. For example, you're only under a teacher's surveillance when you attend their class, but you can't be under your parent's surveillance during this time because you're not at home. When you're at home, your teachers don't have surveillance over you as you're not in their class and they don't live with you at home. If you're in prison, the wardens and the guards most likely have surveillance access to you at all hours as long as you're there. On the internet, virtually anybody on earth has some surveillance access to you at any given time. This could be close friends of your with whom you interact with in real life or complete strangers from all around the globe depending on the setting and context. However, you ARE completely in control of how much surveillance access others have over you in this case.
Social media gives those one loosely defines as "friends" surveillance access to what you're doing and where you might be doing it at any given moment of the day. Still, you have the ability to post as many or as few social media updates as you may see fit. Therefore, you control how much surveillance your closest friends have into your daily life. One who goes on Twitter every week to post Instargam photos of all their meals, give their location on FourSquare about 27 times in a day and then go on Facebook and post roughly 400 photos from their weekend get together provides people more surveillance than one who just goes to their social media outlets only when they have something new or witty or important to share. Video services ara whole other story entirely. A person who is running a 24 hour webcam into their own apartment is obviously giving us more surveillance than someone who uploads videos of themselves to YouTube every so often as YouTube clips may be moment frozen in a specific time frame, but anyone can still see them anywhere and gain some insight into your life from them.
Also, the definition of "punishment" is a bit looser online than in other forms of panopticism. Your online friends can offer their own comments on whatever you may post whether they praise you, judge you, shame you or even attempt to offer some of their own constructive criticism. However, they have no real power to punish you merely via social networking portals. Still, you can take their words to heart or you can completely ignore them. However, those who run whatever site you're on still have some power to delete your content or ban you from ever using their site again entirely. In that case, it would still be partly other's responsibility to report you if they find you offensive to their own sensibilities and it would partly be on you to obey the rules and guidelines and codes of behavior of said site so that you don't post anything that might get you reported or kicked out.
Everyone has a different amount of surveillance into their lives that they are willing to give others total access to. In this era where social networking is all the rage, everyone is building their own digital panopticon to fit their own needs and desires. This may be the first and only era in human history where such a feat could be possible, albeit in a less tangible medium. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)