Wednesday, February 27, 2008
NewYorker -Poster
Poster had a valid point when he was talking about the First Amendment being carried over to the Internet (pg 538). At first glance, it should seem that the freedom of speech rule would apply to the Internet, blogs, homepages, etc. And at the emergence of the Internet, there was absolute freedom of speech throughout cyberspace. However, recently, many sites have been shut down and people have been prosecuted and charged. There are thousands of hater web sites, devoted to certain people, religions, or subjects, that say very harsh things. Now, technically, according to the Amendments, that is allowed - everyone has the freedom to say what they want. But this I think has taken it to a whole new level - it is generating hate, and bad energy amongst web browsers. Even people who stumble across the sites by mistake, they don't want to see that negative page. These pages have caused many problems. Even recently on Facebook, which is actually a very strong vessel for freedom of speech, a group was created promoting hate toward a sorority on campus. And again, technically, that person who started it has a right to say what they want, but if you are part of that target sorority, it is very hurtful to see a group dedicated towards something that you are a part of. People began to see it, and people started protesting - nevertheless, it got taken down eventually. So it's hard, because freedom of speech goes both ways, and each of us has the power. We can use that freedom for good, and promote positive messages, or we can use it for bad, and promote negative and hateful messages. Either way, it is a catch-22 because you want to speak your mind and see if anyone out there in cyberspace agrees with you, but you never know who you are going to offend.
kaymac poster
When I was in fifth grade I had a penpal via email. It was my fifth grade teacher's niece (so no weird creepy guys...). That was my first experience with email correspondence. The first computer that my family owned had a black screen with green type. There was only a word processing program and a flight simulator game that let you take off, fly, and then land.
I couldn't help but laugh when reading this article because it was talking about the Internet back in what? 1993? I think that they were foreshadowing social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace and even lesser-known ones like Purevolume, although that focuses more on music.
I think that this quote sums up what is going on in the internet of our world.
"...the internet and virtual reality open the possibility of new kinds of interactivity such that the idea of an opposition of real and unreal community is not adequate to specify the differences between modes of bonding, serving instead to obscure the manner of the historical construction of forms of community" (Poster, 542).
With these social networking sites, our communities have changed. Instead of of a letter taking forever to reach somebody (I just sent a letter to Vancouver three weeks ago and it finally reached its recipient yesterday), you can have the assurance of instant contact with somebody in China. There's no excuse of the letter getting lost in the mail, you know that the recipient will receive it instantly.
So would Myspace and Facebook be categorized as this "unreal community"? I beg to differ, because I think it has created a different type of community that's not unreal. It can't be categorized as real in the sense of meeting up with somebody in a coffee shop and having a physical conversation, but I think that the type of interaction in social networking sites has created a new kind of community that has yet to be defined.
I couldn't help but laugh when reading this article because it was talking about the Internet back in what? 1993? I think that they were foreshadowing social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace and even lesser-known ones like Purevolume, although that focuses more on music.
I think that this quote sums up what is going on in the internet of our world.
"...the internet and virtual reality open the possibility of new kinds of interactivity such that the idea of an opposition of real and unreal community is not adequate to specify the differences between modes of bonding, serving instead to obscure the manner of the historical construction of forms of community" (Poster, 542).
With these social networking sites, our communities have changed. Instead of of a letter taking forever to reach somebody (I just sent a letter to Vancouver three weeks ago and it finally reached its recipient yesterday), you can have the assurance of instant contact with somebody in China. There's no excuse of the letter getting lost in the mail, you know that the recipient will receive it instantly.
So would Myspace and Facebook be categorized as this "unreal community"? I beg to differ, because I think it has created a different type of community that's not unreal. It can't be categorized as real in the sense of meeting up with somebody in a coffee shop and having a physical conversation, but I think that the type of interaction in social networking sites has created a new kind of community that has yet to be defined.
BubbaNub : Poster
Currently we have studied numerous aspects in class of what postmodernism is defined by, and yet, oddly enough we have not yet looked at the progress of technology and communication. Perhaps one of the most interesting things in Poster's article "Postmodern Virtualities" is his examination of technology written in 1995. When I think back to 1995, I hear the distinct rumbling and electronic whining of a dial up modem...something that is almost entirely extinct today. The predictions he makes within the article seem obvious because all of them have come true. We now have the capability to communicate seamlessly over the Internet, we have phones that can transmit videos that they have shot, and copper wires have been replaced by fiber optics. As we studied in CMC 200, there are great risks in this. We are becoming more detached with not only the real world but with each other. This advent in communication can actually be considered more of a break down in communication. The majority of Lebanon discusses political and social matters over blogs, that often become heated because we have increasing degrees of separation between us (making us more likely to say things that we would not say in person). Now, the big question to this would be does this separation allow for a more truthful "realer" society to come out or does it give rise to ignorance and bigotry?
Poster also talks about the future of virtual reality devices, being able to diverge into simulated communities from our home computers. If we think about the game "Second Life" this has already begun to happen. Now we have the ability to imagine our own worlds and virtual space, constructing an assortment of verisimilitude that Lyotard warns us about. Just why is this so successful? It is successful because people have begun to hate the real world. They want nothing more than to drift into an environment that they can control and manipulate into something they view as an "improvement on the real". Why stay locked away in your single room apartment working a minimum wage job, when you can easily fly around a virtual world as an artist or superhero who sells virtual commodities. As Zizek puts it, is "America getting what it fantasized about?"
Poster also talks about the future of virtual reality devices, being able to diverge into simulated communities from our home computers. If we think about the game "Second Life" this has already begun to happen. Now we have the ability to imagine our own worlds and virtual space, constructing an assortment of verisimilitude that Lyotard warns us about. Just why is this so successful? It is successful because people have begun to hate the real world. They want nothing more than to drift into an environment that they can control and manipulate into something they view as an "improvement on the real". Why stay locked away in your single room apartment working a minimum wage job, when you can easily fly around a virtual world as an artist or superhero who sells virtual commodities. As Zizek puts it, is "America getting what it fantasized about?"
Bumble: Poster
Technology, technology, technology… all it does is feed into our ever fearful minds in our post-modern world. As we have learned in class, our country is obsessed with fear, everything can hurt us and kill us. Maybe I am giving into this hegemonic ideology of fear, but the internet and expanding world of technology scares me! Mark Poster’s, article Postmodern Virtualities, discusses the social and political implications of having a boom in the internet age. The article claims that the internet has, “gained enormously in popularity…” (Poster 535). Suddenly we are able to encode any possible thing in the world, and the encoded filed have never moved so quickly! It has always scared me how vast the Internet is.
One of the points that Poster makes is about the political implications of having such a vast array of information flooding cyber space.
Endless information from every organization, person, political group, scholarly journals pervades this public space. Just the concept of the internet is spooky in that there is this public space shared by all different cultures across time and space. Once upon a time when the internet was a space only for those who are talented in computers, the information was more readily regulated and it was easier to sift through the valuable and invaluable information. Now it is an open playing field. It can also be influential in the political arena, activist groups and terrorist groups are often posting their ideas, hoping that people will be influenced by them.
Along the lines of Zizek and the age of terrorism, the one thing that keeps pounding in my mind and the postmodern thinker is how the terrorists are using the internet and the super speedy connections to create conspiracy theories.
Well after looking into some research about this, if you look hard enough you can find all of the ways that the internet can be used for terrorism. One of the most interesting things that I found is that each picture in google images is encoded with a series of numbers. It is possible to change one of the letters or several letters in the images without dramatically changing the picture itself. Terrorists are able to communicate with each other right out in the open by slightly shifting these codes. As the technology gets faster and faster it becomes all the more easy to communicate out in cyber space.
As technology increases, does human identity decrease? Already our minds are not capable to do as much as the technological developments. We have delegated certain mental tasks to technology, for example we have delegated our memory to our cell phones. No one remembers cell phone numbers anymore, why should our minds (computers) be working if another faster computer can do it for us!? These communication and virtual realities will impact our world far more than we will ever know!
One of the points that Poster makes is about the political implications of having such a vast array of information flooding cyber space.
Endless information from every organization, person, political group, scholarly journals pervades this public space. Just the concept of the internet is spooky in that there is this public space shared by all different cultures across time and space. Once upon a time when the internet was a space only for those who are talented in computers, the information was more readily regulated and it was easier to sift through the valuable and invaluable information. Now it is an open playing field. It can also be influential in the political arena, activist groups and terrorist groups are often posting their ideas, hoping that people will be influenced by them.
Along the lines of Zizek and the age of terrorism, the one thing that keeps pounding in my mind and the postmodern thinker is how the terrorists are using the internet and the super speedy connections to create conspiracy theories.
Well after looking into some research about this, if you look hard enough you can find all of the ways that the internet can be used for terrorism. One of the most interesting things that I found is that each picture in google images is encoded with a series of numbers. It is possible to change one of the letters or several letters in the images without dramatically changing the picture itself. Terrorists are able to communicate with each other right out in the open by slightly shifting these codes. As the technology gets faster and faster it becomes all the more easy to communicate out in cyber space.
As technology increases, does human identity decrease? Already our minds are not capable to do as much as the technological developments. We have delegated certain mental tasks to technology, for example we have delegated our memory to our cell phones. No one remembers cell phone numbers anymore, why should our minds (computers) be working if another faster computer can do it for us!? These communication and virtual realities will impact our world far more than we will ever know!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Elizabeth Byrne 2/26 post class
After studying for today's test, and having a lot of time to think and talk about the readings we have done - the question of reality still seems crazy to me. I am watching the Travel Channel about various modern cities through out the world and Las Vegas is one of the eight "modern wonders of the world". Personally, I had no idea that there were cities that were ranked as "modern" cities. While watching the show I thought back to Dr. Rog's story about Yellow Stone National park and the volcano in Vegas. The show talks about how much money is put into building such things as the volcano and other attractions such as Treasure Island (involving explosions and sinking ships). In an earlier post, I questioned the thought that we have decaf coffee and milk without fat just to satisfy the desires of our culture. After further thought, I do think that our country puts a lot of money into making our culture happy with what we want to see. The family who left Yellow Stone National Park was more satisfied with seeing a fake volcano. I think that with technology today, our culture has decreased in its love for nature and for "real" things. However, the question of real takes me back the difference between original and authentic.
Another thing that I have been learning about on The Travel Channel is the new Eiffel Tower. I don't know much about Las Vegas, but I certainly did not that there was a second Eiffel that is "better" than the first. Due to technology, the one in Las Vegas is more advanced than the original in Paris.
There is also a hotel (i forget the name) in Vegas that could stack 7-8 747 airplanes in it. It has the brightest light on top of along with that of the one on the Great Wall of China. Both of these lights can reach up to outer space.
Las Vegas was described as "a town that will always be on the cutting edge of enginering marvels"
I related this episode of The Travel Channel to Jenks article relating to various types of architecture. Las vegas has various building and attractions that either looked something but were used for something else. Or the Eiffel, which does not represent the same idea's that it represents in Paris. Still leaving with the question- what really is "reality"?
Another thing that I have been learning about on The Travel Channel is the new Eiffel Tower. I don't know much about Las Vegas, but I certainly did not that there was a second Eiffel that is "better" than the first. Due to technology, the one in Las Vegas is more advanced than the original in Paris.
There is also a hotel (i forget the name) in Vegas that could stack 7-8 747 airplanes in it. It has the brightest light on top of along with that of the one on the Great Wall of China. Both of these lights can reach up to outer space.
Las Vegas was described as "a town that will always be on the cutting edge of enginering marvels"
I related this episode of The Travel Channel to Jenks article relating to various types of architecture. Las vegas has various building and attractions that either looked something but were used for something else. Or the Eiffel, which does not represent the same idea's that it represents in Paris. Still leaving with the question- what really is "reality"?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Starfish 2/21
I really enjoyed last Thursday’s class. Going over the exam and doing practice questions was most helpful and I must admit I feel that Braudrillard and Eco are my two favorite readings and discussions so far in this class.
“Was not the framing of the shot itself reminiscent of spectacular shots in catastrophe movies? 231
I look back to the day of 911. I remember where I was when I heard the news and how I felt. I was shocked and didn’t realize the reality of the situation. It was if I felt like it wasn’t really happening because you only see those kinds of things in the movies. I had a click moment in class on Thursday while discussing this idea. I remember one of my classmates in high school smiling and laughing when he had heard the news. I became angry and so did many of my classmates. Why was this is initial reaction to this catastrophic situation? When we discussed the quote, “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise” 233 his reaction began to make sense. This was the kind of thing he saw in the movies and catastrophe movies excite people and are thrilling. For him and many people that day, they got to see their favorite movie spectacles become reality, and I see why this could have been exciting for them. We never believed that something like this could happen to us.
I love the whole idea of how we as American’s tend to capture reality, box it up and make it better because it is s truthful. Dr. Rog’s volcano story was amazing and unbelievable. What are the odds of seeing that family twice in two different locations? It is almost as if it was fate that brought you to see them, because for you this was such a “click” moment. The story was a perfect example in class to describe how we as American’s tend to favor fake reality of real reality because of our impatience and our disappointment with certain aspects of reality. As much as I love Disney and the spectacles of Las Vegas, I feel a little uneasy and saddened about the volcano story. How can a fake volcano going off compare to the real thing? There is beauty, spectacle and wonder in the world around us that is natural and I am worried that we as a society are starting to forget this.
“Was not the framing of the shot itself reminiscent of spectacular shots in catastrophe movies? 231
I look back to the day of 911. I remember where I was when I heard the news and how I felt. I was shocked and didn’t realize the reality of the situation. It was if I felt like it wasn’t really happening because you only see those kinds of things in the movies. I had a click moment in class on Thursday while discussing this idea. I remember one of my classmates in high school smiling and laughing when he had heard the news. I became angry and so did many of my classmates. Why was this is initial reaction to this catastrophic situation? When we discussed the quote, “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise” 233 his reaction began to make sense. This was the kind of thing he saw in the movies and catastrophe movies excite people and are thrilling. For him and many people that day, they got to see their favorite movie spectacles become reality, and I see why this could have been exciting for them. We never believed that something like this could happen to us.
I love the whole idea of how we as American’s tend to capture reality, box it up and make it better because it is s truthful. Dr. Rog’s volcano story was amazing and unbelievable. What are the odds of seeing that family twice in two different locations? It is almost as if it was fate that brought you to see them, because for you this was such a “click” moment. The story was a perfect example in class to describe how we as American’s tend to favor fake reality of real reality because of our impatience and our disappointment with certain aspects of reality. As much as I love Disney and the spectacles of Las Vegas, I feel a little uneasy and saddened about the volcano story. How can a fake volcano going off compare to the real thing? There is beauty, spectacle and wonder in the world around us that is natural and I am worried that we as a society are starting to forget this.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
kaymac 2.21.08
"America got what is fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise." (Zizek, 233). I could not have put that into better words myself. Here we are, fantasizing about planes blowing up and landing on The Strip, dramatic reenactments of past and future wars, and money laundering and drug cultures, just to name a few. We glorify the actors and the people they play, therefore we glorify the actual people whom those actors represent.
So when these actual events that we have glorified so much actually take place, we call it surreal because we don't want to take responsibility for our actions and for what we have done to those images. And because these events and images are so surreal, we don't know how to act around them and therefore do not have the proper reaction. I mean, look at Katrina and New Orleans. Was there a plan somewhere in city hall that had a directions on what to do just in case the levees broke? People think that just because it happens in films, it can't happen to them (including romantic-comedy films) because nothing can live up to having the right music and camera angles at the right time, having their hair perfect even though their plane almost crashed to the ground, and things of that nature.
It's true. We are destroying ourselves in our films. Not only are we actually killing off people in the films (you ever notice that in Jackie Chan films you rarely ever see the fate of a random ninja he beats up?) but we are destroying our perception of reality. Our visions of reality are so skewed by now that when reality actually does occur it doesn't register and we don't react. Think of how many images and representations of starving children you've seen. Or even better, how many images and representations of Briney Spears going nuts have you seen? If you look into it, Spears is an actual person going nuts because of the public eye upon her 24/7. Imagine if you're mother went nuts and locked you up with her in your house, not allowing anybody else to see you while cops were outdoors? Instead of wondering why all of this happened, we laugh at the (soon to be) Saturday Night Live skits and John Stewart comments (personally, I really hate Britney Spears. What a waste of human).
So where are we going to go from here? I don't think we have as a species have ever realized our realities and maybe that's why we've become "higher" than animals with our buildings and agricultural systems and animals have just been happy living their lives, not getting hit by cars.
So when these actual events that we have glorified so much actually take place, we call it surreal because we don't want to take responsibility for our actions and for what we have done to those images. And because these events and images are so surreal, we don't know how to act around them and therefore do not have the proper reaction. I mean, look at Katrina and New Orleans. Was there a plan somewhere in city hall that had a directions on what to do just in case the levees broke? People think that just because it happens in films, it can't happen to them (including romantic-comedy films) because nothing can live up to having the right music and camera angles at the right time, having their hair perfect even though their plane almost crashed to the ground, and things of that nature.
It's true. We are destroying ourselves in our films. Not only are we actually killing off people in the films (you ever notice that in Jackie Chan films you rarely ever see the fate of a random ninja he beats up?) but we are destroying our perception of reality. Our visions of reality are so skewed by now that when reality actually does occur it doesn't register and we don't react. Think of how many images and representations of starving children you've seen. Or even better, how many images and representations of Briney Spears going nuts have you seen? If you look into it, Spears is an actual person going nuts because of the public eye upon her 24/7. Imagine if you're mother went nuts and locked you up with her in your house, not allowing anybody else to see you while cops were outdoors? Instead of wondering why all of this happened, we laugh at the (soon to be) Saturday Night Live skits and John Stewart comments (personally, I really hate Britney Spears. What a waste of human).
So where are we going to go from here? I don't think we have as a species have ever realized our realities and maybe that's why we've become "higher" than animals with our buildings and agricultural systems and animals have just been happy living their lives, not getting hit by cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)