Media Convergence Question CJ Hunter

In the Sterne reading, I was struck by how convinced he was that computer companies are moral companies, not out to seek profit in every way possible. Mostly, he makes the point that computer technology is an unfinished product, and vindicates the decision to not allow computers to be backwards compatible because of the need to develop new technologies.

However, if companies spent more time developing technologies, certain problems might be avoided, and longer spans may be made between updates and new versions. However, time is money, so essentially my question is “Are computer companies really so moral that the bottom line doesn`t drive everything, as Sterne suggests? Can they be vindicated in their decision to not allow backwards compatablity?”

If I am being honest, no.

Media Convergance Question – Lissa Glynn

The part in the Hansen reading about Flickeur and reminded of the Camera Lucida reading we did a while back. In particular, I was thinking about the online images that are randomly produced by something like Flickeur and how Barthes would have seen them. Would the concept of “what has been” still stand? Or because the images are coming from the Internet where digitally edited images are harder to detect, do these images have to be regarded in a different way?  Do the images lose their credibility by being on the Internet?

Media Convergence Question – Jamaur Bronner

The Sterne article presents many of the spatial and economic challenges that accompany the storage of obsolete computers and recommends a “convivial digital infrastructure” to replace the current system of selling machines with short-shelf lives.  Sterne adds that “we expect our cars and computer appliances to work for a decade or more” and that building a computer of similar fortitude is not beyond our technical capabilities.  Sterne suggests that such a computer does not demand a new economic system, but wouldn’t the economic system have to be substantially changed?  It appears that applications and hardware have a symbiotic relationship of economic success where advancements in one industry drives the sales of the other. As Sterne says, “computer trash turns digital technologies into ‘new’ media”.   For example, a computer that has a faster processor is able to install a more resource-demanding operating system – which drives up sales for that operating system.  Perhaps to cover the costs from this shift in market dynamics, computers could just cost as much as cars since they will be as durable.  Do you think the average American would be willing to pay $20,000 for a long-lasting computer?  If not, how can we solve the inherent challenges of revenue loss that would be heaped upon the computer hardware manufacturers?

Media Convergence Question-DBrewington

In “Residual Media” Sterne discusses the issues that fast developing computer technology has created rather than solved. Sterne focuses on disposal of obsolete technology, which currently has no special disposal requirements. This is an issue I had not thought of. As a child of the technolgy boom generation, I’ve personally had 4 laptops in less than 10 years. Reading this article made me question what other issues are raised by new media forms. We have focused on how they have influenced human history and arguably “evolution”, but what have they done to the enviroment that we live in? How many forests were eliminated to create paper? How many special batteries have been recycled in an environmentally friendly way? Sterne’s concerns should be the concerns of all technology developers and users. At the current rate, each person uses several forms of technology on a regular basis…we have to consider possible negative impacts of these new media forms.

Charlie Rodman – Media Convergence Question

Sterne discusses that computers cannot make a fashionable revival like other outdated forms of media. He says this raises the issue of how to dispose of outdated computers and what people should do with their old computers. Computers represent a a unique form of media insofar as they actually need to be replaced many times withina generation because society is so reliant on computers that falling too far behind could actually essentially remove someone from the societal network that surrounds them. My question, then, is two fold. First, seeing how computers are seemingly developing at an exponential rate, the need to replace computers will will continually have to happen more frequently; thus, how will the issue of disposing of old computers be resolved? Second, how will society be able to afford keeping up with the need to replenish computers at this increased rate at an individual level? Will ocmputers eventually be able to replace themselves, or at least update themselves to meet with more recent standards? Would this mean computers would become more bionic because they would have to learn to adapt?

Charlie Rodman – Hand Brain 3

It is rather unbelievable how well Licklider predicted the development of computers and the human-computer symbiosis that has developed in the twenty years since his death. Though the exact details of his theories proved inaccurate, the general idea has come mostly true. For instance, Lickliders s that computers were too costly for individualuse and thus a vast network of computing centers would be formed. These computing centers would allow access to a larger network that held the resources of libraries and allowed for rapid access to essentially any information (which he described as the future innovations of technology). All the while he emphasized that this network would continually develop the interconnectivity of its users who would lease access to this larger network. What he essentially described here was the internet – more specifically internet since the development of broadband.
Interestingly enough, however, in a text discussing the developing symbiosis between human and computer, the area where he fell short of his prediction was the personalization of the computer. He did not foresee the mutual expansion of available memory (in decreased sizes) as costs simultaneously decreased. These were that prompted his shared network space theory. Thus, the actual development of computer technology has proven to be far more symbiotic than even Licklider predicted. These days for a few hundred dollars and a monthly fee a cell phone can be purchased that would shame Licklider’s hypothesized network. Sixteen gigabytes of storage was an unfathomable amount of space in his time and now exists in a chip the size of a finger nail that costs about thirty dollars. Coupled with around the clock internet access and artificial memory, mankind has become an information storage and gathering behemoth – by way of the computer. The symbiotic relationship between man and computer will only continue to develop making mankind more reliant on computers still. In turn, as mankind becomes increasingly dependent on technology, it is developed at an increasing rate, creating a cyclical circumstance that continually brings the two closer together.

Hand + Brain 3: Augmentation Response – Morgan

This week I was particularly interested in the Hayles reading, “Unfinished Work: From Cyborgs to Cognispheres.” Her overarching point was that the conception of man’s relationship with technology, as Haraway saw it (the cyborg), no longer accurately characterizes the complex co-evolution with technology and other biological organisms that we undergo. She uses the term “cognisphere” to encompass the “globally interconnected cognitive systems” (page 161) that we are now a part of. The cognisphere incorporates the increasing multiplicity that characterizes our technologies, our cognitive structures, and the globalization that new media allows. Immediately, I could see how Hayles’ theory about the changing ways we think about humans operating in our world reflects Rotman’s ideas about the “self.” In Chapter 4 of his book, “Becoming Beside Ourselves,” he emphasized the shifting dynamic of the human self to one that operates on many parallel and multidirectional processes (whereas the older conception was unidirectional–involving serial processes). It seems as though the shift in thinking is unmistakeable and widely recognized.

The most compelling part of Hayles’ discussion for me, however, was the example she provided about the NSA’s surveillance programs. It attempts to convey the increasingly blurred line between human and machine cognition. Their computer sifts through an enormous amount of communication information looking for patterns. Although the majority of data is not seen by humans, this still causes a degree of unrest about whether or not this could be a violation of our rights. The underlying question lies in how we distinguish humans and machines. On the matter, a national security analyst said, “I don’t think your privacy is violated when you have a computer doing it as opposed to a human. It isn’t a sentient being. It’s a machine running a program” (Page 162). This brings up a lot of important issues. First, if computers have the capacity to “see” or “perceive” information, integrate and analyze it, AND remember it, what separates it from our own information processing system? Some people would consider us to be just “machines” running some sort of “program” as well. Does our anxiety stem from the fact that if this information is stored somewhere, hypothetically a human could access it? Is it the human’s ability to “judge” or “react” to certain information in a culturally meaningful way that makes us cringe? Because, isn’t our fear of this information being recorded only contingent upon its possible resurfacing? This riddle not only proves Hayles’ point, but it also brings to mind a series of interesting and relevant questions about our psyches and self-consciousness.