The Nagging Questions about the Tablet Newspaper

The Ipad came in very late in the market. Samsung cited that the technology is in the public domain since 1994. The fact that it was not common knowledge points at Ipad technology’s usefulness today. The downside is that during the 90s, internet technology expanded by leaps and bounds. However, during 1994, the internet was, as Michael S. Rosenwald’s article For tablet computer visionary Roger Fidler, a lot of what-ifs says in the dinosaur age. The internet was just coming into usages of video. If videos streaming would have existed during the time as it does today, the technology would have been picked up on. Instead, Rosenwald’s article asserts that the technology was not advanced enough to make the technology feasible then.

As a result, Moore’s law is expressed in this matter, because the fact that the tablet was makeable during 1994. Laptops existed well before tablets did. I had a Compaq laptop with a swappable CD-rom drive and a 3.5 floppy drive. The laptop could run windows 98 but came installed with 95.  Perhaps, according to Moore’s law, the technology would have been more commonplace, better, and cheaper even today if it was developed more from back then.

The sheer price of the model could skew the thoughts of the early majority to the late majority in terms of adoption of technology. The early adopters in this case would save up the money and take in the technology as unique. Then, today, the Ipad would not be the same as it was then, it would be similar to a comparison between an Apple IIe and a modern IMac today. The same can be said of tablet computing and IMacs.

Web 2.0 or previous versions, allow the Ipad to be a beacon of producing content today. However, the tablet back then with Web 1.0 and the early emergent versions of passively read media, versus currently read media beg the point that the tablet technology proposed then in 1994 by Roger Fidler was pushing for an earlier emergent transition between web 1.0 and 2.0.

Marshall McClullen would consider the Table Newspaper of Fiddler’s as a medium for a message. The medium because of the fact that the content already existed in a form expressed by current media outlets. However, it was combining cutting edge technology and thought into a different expressed form. The medium favors the messenger then to be the content producer, thus going back to Web 1.0 to 2.0 differences.

The nagging revelation, when considering Arthur C. Clarke’s predictions about the internet and Fiddler’s misconceptions of timeline and infrastructure goes back to what he says in Rosenwalds article. He expresses prudence as a factor in emerging technologies and communications media. The concepts points at the fact that perhaps limiting factors need not be a deterrent when challenging and revamping current mediated expressions.

Advertisements

Means, Motives, and Opportunities

The examples in each reading of Means, Motive, and Opportunity build into each other because they essentially all combine into a matter of capability. Basically, what once was able to be done one way is no longer able to be able to be done that way. For example in the readings, the idea that people were able to publish and had to use a publisher was because of costs. However, now those same people can use the tools to self-publish. Geocities was a way to publish for an audience back then and similar sites like Geocities exist today. However, the difference between publishing for an audience and publishing to a collective collaborative magazine for instance is due to the tenants of extrinsic value over intrinsic value.  Authors are looking for prestige when they publish to a certain collective publication such as the creative writing magazine Quiddity. However, if a person cannot get an article published in a newspaper about Obama coming to see them, they can make the article available online. However, who is able to see it? The means basically says that the capabilities exist in greater proportion compared to say during the sixties. Whether it is right or wrong hinges on this fact. The Motive is the second cause and compares to the fact that certain people do not want to do as good of the work as people that are paid to do a boring task. The three articles point at Amateur a lot and this cause builds onto each other. The Z-boys of skating, to the Charities of Groban to the self-publications online, all build themselves together. Opportunity relates in general because if no one has a means and a motive then one cannot have an opportunity. However, opportunities such as collaboration, feature persons that are able to bring together abilities that no one else had. Collaboration caused South Koreans to want to protest import of US beef. Then, the special thanks portions of the Groban websites are this intrinsic value and getting one’s name out there makes all the difference and is a motivator over money especially when comparing intrinsic to extrinsic values.

The media landscape today when given the feedback loop is changing and is accountable to opportunity, means, and motive. Opportunity, Means, and Motive are taken most of the time by media corporations and given a professional value at the highest level but this does not mean that their production is going to be the best. It may look good, but the motive to do better really goes down with the fact that the pay might be low as well. If the journalists were not paid for their stories, the stress level would likely lead them to go and say goodbye to their current news agencies. The fact that certain different media outlets exist away from the current media stream such as Chris Hedges, Glen Greenwald, and Amy Goodman with democracy now indicate a means. The fact that such individuals like Chris Hedges, Glen Greenwald, and Amy Goodman include a different take fueled and bolstered by their online websites they contribute to brings them to motives. The motives are that they were disgruntled by normal media outlets such as NBC, Time-Warner/Cnn, etc. So the opportunity afforded by the web enabled them to basically do what they want. The downside is that these media outlets are outside of the mainstream and mostly money is what keeps them out of the mainstream but thankfully the internet allows them to have a voice at all. If they were broadcasting back in say the 1980s then they would have a harder time publishing. They would likely be gobbled up by other media and communications. There does not seem to be any difference from the media perspectives presented in Means, Motive, and Opportunity. They all appear solid representations of media types considering the works of Amy Goodman, Glen Greedwald, Chris Hedges, and other former mainstream reporters like them. This association basically puts them at the forefront of the opportunities afforded and many volunteers help them out because most of the time the sites are not for profit although sometimes they are for profit. The motive is to get at the truth that other media outlets seem to ignore. The opportunity on the other hand provides a feedback loop but no one has to listen to that feedback loop because of the money that the mainstream media puts into its publications.

Cognitive Surplus and Society of Problem Solvers

Clay Shirky’s Articles are both articles denoting a cognitive surplus because of free time  and the complexisation of society throughout the years. He compares different mediums that made society much more complex over the years up until now. When I read the article Gin, Television, and Cognitive Surplus, I cannot help but still see Alcohol is still a tranquilizer as much as TV was. The fact is that we still do not know what to do with ourselves. Then, the other counterpoint that comes up in my mind is that we still need grunt work and we as a society have individuals that enjoy doing the dirty work.

Culture echoes the sentiments of Gin, Television, and Cognitive Surplus about the way culture utilizes time and resources of its members. Shirky contrasts the contributions to culture by the less than professional. He also makes a contrast with the freeloaders. However, he uses Alchemy to detail that culture is self-regulatory. I can side with Shirky in his talk because of belonging to a community of artists such as on Deviantart that post stories and art for the entire internet to partake of, and mostly for free.

Cognitive Surplus: The Great Spare-Time Revolution explains the culturally utilitarian views of Clay Shirky and Daniel Pink of how spare time has shaped culture. I do not disagree with this viewpoint of cognitive  surplus. I can relate about TV and vegging out. I especially agree with the fines and how persons get away with it and believe it is a sanction to keep doing bad. However, they don’t factor in disempowerment. In a society, if a single person is both not given an opportunity rather than does not take an opportunity then the point about desire is moot. Yet, I will give Shirky and Pink the benefit of the doubt.

Then, as a stark contrast to digitization and collaboration, Nicholas Carr talks about how computers and the internet make limit the ability of human minds to take in deep understanding of a concept. I thought about these findings in perpetuating brain rewiring and found this article very informative. The fact that the studies point at the degradation of the brain as a result of online activity seem to break with the assertion of Pink and Shirky. Instead, we are left with a warning that too much computer use benefits certain area of the brain while making worse other areas that matter. In the videos we watched in class, the point brought up really skews my view on this answer and takes it into the unknown for me. Considering the fact that using the computer is saving trees, technology is an asset to conservation in that way. Then again, perhaps this is a future change in intelligence that is geared toward more of a results driven product driven model. What I mean is as the video said, that the future societies will change to create many different solutions to complex problems all at one time through evolved multi-tasking.

However, my digression is that if Money can measure time then perhaps in the future, we will become so complex, compact and fast as a society that we won’t need money anymore. I hope, at least but until then, hurry it up.

Friedman Vs. Ghemawat

Friedman discussed the fact that the word is becoming easier to do global business in. Friedman assumes that the world is becoming much more globally integrated.  He optimistically portrays the world as changing for the better.

I appreciate Friedman’s enthusiasm. Throughout the lecture, he gave some information that felt should be relevant. As soon as I view Ghemawat’s video, I began to see the counterpoints and realize that Friedman really puts an optimistic view on the whole situation. He does not really assert his authority as anything other than a foreign correspondent in his video. That in all makes his believability as sketchy and seemingly more agenda setting (political) than academic. He does give an ounce of information relevant to the time. Being in the IT field myself, I would agree that, or at least that the businesses I worked for would agree with what he is saying. For example, he outlines several of the workers for the future, such as special, specialized, great collaborators, etc. If adding in the fact of other countries beating out the US because of the fact that academics are taken in much different ways in Asian and East Asian countries, then certainly the US falls behind in education. I just wish Friedman would be a prognosticator in his speech and book. He doesn’t go onto globalization 4.0 and 5.0. It is by this fact that I always ask that folks display no end goal and only give a momentary snapshot of what the world was and is. Certainly, the way Friedman talks about it, and the way economists describe education inflation or academic inflation (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Education%20Inflation) I agree because I’ve seen it happen. The adaptability and, as he describes it, the creation of learners tends to leave me shaking my head. The counterpoint to the argument is the fact that if everyone took the subject and studied the teacher that is the most interesting, what does that leave progress at. Scientists, Engineers, and Health Professionals are needed the most, but what if a person had an aptitude for the subject and a love of it but a certain teacher or professor by their quality of teaching deterred said student from taking classes. For example, a friend I know that is an IT Systems Administrator had his professor tell him that he was there to weed out the wannabees. His response to the professor was that the professor wasn’t there to do that but to teach them.

Ghemawat on the other hand points out that Friedman uses stories rather than facts to support his assertations. Ghemawat brings in facts about globalization. He specifically orients on technological innovation that drives global integration. He points out through statistics that the number of international phone calls are less than the public believes they are. He challenges the audience to look up the statistics themselves. He traces the origination of the flattening of the world phrasing back to the implementation of railroads in Africa.

The fact that Ghemawat was accused of thinking of the world as round in his talks over in India, make me wonder about corporate backed subsidiaries. Whether, it is in the best interest of foreign corporations to back a view of a flattening world now (rather than later) in order to challenge controversial views of a western dominated media and corporate influence. The fact that he does not believe that the world is integrating or is integrated already does not mean he is right or wrong, it merely means that facts can be supposed to say that the world is not as integrated as we would like to believe. I admire Ghemawat that he is willing to look up the information and rather being a voicebox for all statistical data, challenges the audience to look up data separately from the Ted talks. However, it is this scapel for the details fact that leads me to differ on his lecture. While he wants to help everyone be savvy on statistics, his choice of statistics on phone calls is limited. If he would compare more computer based statistics then the argument would be much more relevant today.

I am Web 2.0 and so can you

Stephen Colbert was the inspiration for my title. He coined the phrase commedically referring to phrasing that some self help and self success books used.

 

My view on Web 2.0 sides with the critics in the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 that it is just a term to make the web look fresh. “Other critics labeled Web 2.0 “a second bubble” (referring to the Dot-com bubble of circa 1995 to 2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as “Bubble 2.0”.

 

While, I don’t disagree that the technological bounds do merit a new phrase to go along with it, I think that Web 2.0 is just the golden grahams cereal with a different box. It psychologically tastes different but it’s still made by the same makers of regular golden grahams. So, if the web is just an attempt by businesses to grasp at a new strategy then Web 2.0 is just camouflage.

 

I disagree in general that it really is a technologically advanced as well. Windows 95 and 98 might have been a technological advance at the time but they were still driven by DOS. That being said, maybe what will come out of this is a Windows 2000 and XP, and 7. The new web interface?

 

Take a look at PeppermitOS (http://lifehacker.com/5594027/peppermint-ice-is-a-webapp-based-linux-distro-without-excluding-native-apps).

 

Web based app desktops are something that Linux has already pushed at. Windows 8 was Microsoft catching up with what Linux had already pioneered. However, as the reviewer of Peppermint Os remarks, web applications are great if you have a good internet connection (http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.com/2013/06/peppermint-os-four-review-linux-mint-of.html).

 

Web 2.0 is based on current technological systems of distribution. Server, Network, Client. Essentially, it is turning a desktop to a thin client (http://www.infoworld.com/t/computer-hardware/debunked-5-myths-of-thin-client-computing-227483), or a computer without local processing. You essentially log onto a remote server but it looks like you are connected to a desktop. I had users in that company I worked for, that didn’t know any better, act as if the box that was there had all their information on it. No, no, it’s like your TV, you change channels but everything originates from somewhere else.

 

So, it is interesting to read on the Wikipedia article about Web 3.0 considering this article about Silicon being overextended and the development of human brain behaving processing technologies (http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computing/beyond-silicon-the-processor-tech-of-2035-1039114). Web 2.0 is already potential child’s play and is already bordering on obsolete. Yet, If that is the case, and including as O’Reilley said,”It’s a network in permanent beta.” It actually achieves human consciousness. Yay humanity. Because humanity is always in beta, if he means that humanity is constantly striving to make itself better and updating itself dynamically. How organic, O’Reilly. I really do approve Web 2.0 in that way.

 

Yet, I remain cynical about who or what is driving Web 2.0 architecture, and what is slowing down this transition beyond silicon. I candidly argue that Web 2.0 is based on Thin Client concepts and is just ripe for business rebranding and worrying extended control over our daily decision-making. However, it looks so good because a thin client is cheaper than high priced electronics. See, the businesses saved money and so can you. Cloud Computing! Compute from anywhere. (Don’t call it Web 2.0, it confuses non technophiles, call it something cute like Cloud Computing.) But hey, it’s easier to deploy support on thin clients because the support can screen shadow you and make sure you’re clicking your mouse the right way in a program. And honestly (and the ticker) what do you do on the web anyways, huh? Do you just go to Facebook? Why do you even need a word processor on your computer? You can just compose your entries right on Facebook.

 

However, the issue is still double sided, when considering the wikipedia article saying that Web 2.0 allows more social interaction, rather than one way. I disagree. Solely because I asked the question: this is based on who’s sole authority. The question of the matter is and formulated in a similar way in Bruce Sterlings article: does humanity even have the authority to designate what is better than itself? Because, Web 2.0 standard would place the authority with the people or crowdsourcing. I really don’t think so, again because the personal computer was personal, but thin client based architecture is, well, not so personal. The example also is last year’s Volkswagen commercial. Essentially the commercial was cited as being racist. However, the Jamaican government came back and expressed approval of it. So, not racist? Essentially, they went back to authority and the Jamaican government. It is our authority as the content creators or promoters to change web architecture and technology one way or the other. The Wikipedia article hints at a viewpoint that Web 3.0 will just harken back to the authority figure. And, with Net Neutrality back in the forefront of recent events, I hope this organic transition isn’t stifled. I hope, that if this is an organic human invention, that some open organization patents it so that no single person can attempt to claim it for their own private interests like private companies tried to patent the human genome project. Literally, that’s what scares me. But, with the advancement of Artificial Intelligence, the evolving web seems to point at, according to that article: will we be asking next about non-human intelligence rights.

 

However as Bruce says “I really think it’s the original sin of geekdom, a kind of geek thought-crime, to think that just because you yourself can think algorithmically, and impose some of that on a machine, that this is intelligence. That is not intelligence. That is rules-based machine behavior. It’s code being executed. It’s a powerful thing, it’s a beautiful thing, but to call that intelligence is dehumanizing. You should stop that. It does not make you look high-tech, advanced, and cool. It makes you look delusionary.” A software and database programmer I know agrees with him. I finally understand why because of what Bruce says. Artificial intelligence goes back to a waste of time, my computer programming acquaintance said.

 

So, what is computing then if it isn’t trying to enhance the daily lives of people? Because this is what it makes me think of? Do we go back to the days of human calculators? Do we give everyone jobs in the factory doing menial tasks, or do we try to evolve past Web 3.0 and make ourselves and information and culture driven world like futuristic Utopias say we should.

 

That being said, I’ve used the web to send out my creative writing and post it to art sites such as Deviantart. I am a strict user of Web 2.0. The art community sites are the updated form of an artist’s portal. However, I took the advice of http://skinnyartist.com/ and made a regular web presence for myself. The site I have is a wordpress based site and allows for comments directly to my site’s blog. I have plugins that cross post to Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ right as I post to the blog. I see my online experience as participatory. I used to hover and take in information but since the junior year of high school I’ve learned about basic web design. From 2007 onward, I started to become much more actively engaged.

 

The downside is, if I wanted to crosslink my Deviantart to my website and vice-versa, I have to pay. The art sites do not allow much for syndication. I find that I have to post to Deviantart as well as to my website. I recently found that search engines do not like this. Duplicate content is frowned upon and considered a way to cheat search engine rankings.

 

Otherwise, I attempt to contribute to the community by reading as much as I post.

The Same Old Song

I have so many ways I can take the issue of net neutrality that I have no idea where to start. So, I will talk about how I used the internet at my parents house. Essentially, only dialup was available in Warrensburg Illinois. I heard even today a local finance manager for Comcast lives in Warrensburg and cannot settle on a cable provider. The last time I did a search I could not find any cable companies that would claim Warrensburg.  Warrensburg has had a rocky relationship with them. When we moved to Illinois it had a very shoddy cable company that the village board ousted their contract with. Then, the next one got ousted, then it had Cebridge connections which is not longer there.

Basically, Warrensburg is now a satellite tv town. Verizon recently gave up landline territory that included Warrensburg. They remain the best coverage for cell phones to date and that is two bars walking down the street in some area. Recently, I’ve used my Verizon phone’s internet for connection, but I am limited by data plan and I like to have a full desktop computer or a laptop/netbook/tablet with a separate keyboard.  I tried to approach our new provider (landline company that replaced Verizon) when they began to send us: “connect with our DSL” advertisements, and after feeding them an address (, no commercial business and the post office outside of warrensburg will accept our regular street address, but that is another story in itself,) they happily reported: we don’t have service in your area “yet” although this “yet” is now few years later still and maybe they have it or not. At the time they then offered me their wireless service, but the kicker is, I used to live in Decatur, IL and had Comcast. There I paid 40.00 (landlord paid for basic cable so was able to secure a discount of instead of about 50 dollars I paid a dollar less). At the time, Insight Communications was the cable provider that just got bought out by Comcast. Then, the lawsuit came from the FCC on net neutrality about the time and I didn’t notice a difference (and that is sad but the company I worked for had, ungodly faster in comparison, T1 so surfing was far faster there).  The speed was increased to 10mbps average download speed.

I started on a project to create a WISP (wireless internet service provider) based in Warrensburg with business plans to offer rural internet to other towns, then across the state and then across the country. I contacted a regional provider to contract bandwidth, data lines, for the internet from. I believe the quote was in the $100K to run communication lines to Warrensburg (it may have been less or more its been more than four years and I forget). So, lack of startup funds (did you know Illinois has an all-encompassing telecommunications tax, even on small startup telecommunications companies), help, drive, interest, and naysayers (only one friend with no disposable income really interested) kicked the project from gaining any traction.

I moved back to Warrensburg because of career hardships and found that if I wanted 1mbps I would have to pay $50.00 on the average to a satellite or wireless provider, pay a butt load more on equipment and installation (one can buy cable/dsl modems easier at say Walmart than satellite modems), and had to sign a shiny 2 year contract with penalties for cancellation. Recently, I think the contracts are far lesser, such as one year, but I haven’t researched it for a while as I gave up. My parents owned the house and did not want to allow the extra equipment installed on the side of their house (wireless antenna beamed off the grain elevator, or another satellite dish) but especially because I don’t know whether I’ll be there in two years. So, I certainly do not expect companies to keep this up for free because of the fact they love to advertise for services unavailable in my area. This is not new to me with my personal history discussed above.

I live on campus and get internet included in my education package.  That was one of the reasons I decided to live on campus rather than commute.

So, when I get asked “What’s your breaking point where I will unplug due to net neutrality”, I laugh. I would likely get dialup for 10.98 a month (yes dialup is still available) and peruse websites with a text only browser (as I am a professional writer by occupation and that is pictures via text and not text via pictures).  Data transmission of plain text is pretty darn quick on the backbone POTS (plain old telephone service) because that was what is made in mind of. So, I am willing to put up with a lot to do just the basics. With the web favoring videos more than ever, POTS is even slower and harder to get information with.

I might be willing to accept net neutrality standards, but not as a boxed product. I mean, net neutrality standards as a packaged deal. Comcast has been trying to package phone, TV, and internet for years. Direct TV usually has something similar but has different providers handle that. Then again, maybe Google will come to Warrensburg before Comcast (https://fiber.google.com/about/). But, Google though did not fight Net Neturality this time.

I’ve felt I’ve been bullied, falsely advertised to, and dangled a carrot many times by the Broadband Internet Service Providers and major companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. They may work in larger metropolitan areas, and from a business standpoint have more potential for making money off of their customer base. So, if worse comes to worse, I’ll go to my library and surf for an hour for free when I need to. They’ve upgraded to a faster internet connection from ISDN a few years ago.

Deceitful Men

So, I had a friend that moved to colorado. He went into electronic sales. Then, they legalized marijuana growth in the state. He started on that bandwagon. Then, he came back to here. We talk about it sometime. I wonder if the NSA would pick up on that and think we were actually dealing it.

For those reasons, I am apprehensive when it comes to things that are illegal in one jurisdiction but legal in another. Just the association with someone that looks bad could get me in the line for unneeded data collection by the NSA. So, I am not very keen on this and I hope that the NSA would look at such talk and dismiss it. Still, the uncertainty is what really makes me uneasy with privacy concerns. I consider privacy as a place to go to without the prying eyes of anyone of any jurisdiction, and even roomates I live alongside of. I am thankful that I have my own bedroom I can retreat to and if I’m in the middle of typing up assignments such as this and my roomates are bugging me, it makes me very touchy.

The line might be drawn on the fact that when I transmit communications outside of my house or private residence, that it is immediately not my private concern. However, I think that the matter extends to private business. I guess I mean private in terms of sending mail back and forth. I might not be too disturbed about spying at the get go but thinking about it I do not really enjoy the fact that the NSA could look at my credit card numbers.

The video we watched by Nova called “The Spy Factory” had an official quote it was not easy to harvest this information. Again, though, if a person is worth pursing by the NSA then it stands to reason that the legal system needs get involved from the get-go. A magistrate can be taken into confidence that a person is being deceitful. Spying is as much deceit as anything that a person is deceitful at.

However, I go back to what I said before and that my colleagues have echoed in that no one cares until someone is knocking at their front door. I will end with a quote from Machiavelli from The Prince: “Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.”