The article discussed in class on Thursday really got me thinking about computers in the classroom. I am going to talk about this from my prospective. I am a college student that seldom takes notes. It is not that I don't think note taking works, I just don't think it works for me. If I have note paper I tend to doodle in class and it severely shatters my ability to focus in class. However, I like to learn and if I have a computer in front of me I tend to use it to look us things I am unsure of while in class. I feel like this serves two purposes. First, I get a better learning experience out of the class, and secondly I gain the confidence to be more vocal in class. If I am able to double check my point of view and back it up quickly with some facts I am much more likely to express that viewpoint in class. I don't think that I am the average classroom computer user.
I often disheartened when I look around a classroom and see the number of students who are not paying attention or even trying to be evolved. I feel it is these people for whom a computer in the classroom is a terrible distraction for. I pay a lot of money to go to college. I am incurring a great deal of debt and work 30-35 hours a week to support myself on top of full time college. I realize that once I graduate I will be expected to be worth a damn. I will need he ability to think on my feet and to explain myself in a concise and effective manner. The classroom is a great place to practice these skills. I think the problem many students have is that to them college is a place to end childhood instead of a place to start adulthood. I don't think any amount of laptop or technology bans will help these student learn until they gain a thirst for knowledge on their own. I feel like bans like this are much more likely to hurt students like me who use their laptops as a way to augment and understand lectures better.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Net Nutrality
Net Neutrality has become a very important issue since the first appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Federal Communications Commission in the appeal Comcast filed about the their right to moderate broadband internet traffic on its network in whatever fashion it saw fit. I feel that this ruling was a grave blow against the freedom of thought and expression that the internet makes possible.
Before I can get into the specifics on why I personally feel that anything but net neutrality is wrong I feel that I must correct a number incorrect or wrong facts that have been circling the web about net neutrality and the appeal that has put it in the national spotlight. Here is an example from the Washingtons Posts website. It is an article about Comcast’s appeal to the FCC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040600742.html
I am going to point out a number of errors in the article. If you would like to read it feel free although it is not required to understand this next portion. The Washington Post article states that the FCC was trying to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site”. Later in the article they name the site as “the BitTorrent file sharing site”. Both of these claims are wildly inaccurate on propagate misinformation about the situation. It is first important to understand what Bit Torrent is. Bit Torrent if a file transfer protocol designed to move large files. It is basically a way for computers to transfer large files by breaking them into very small pieces and allowing the person downloading the file to pull pieces from many different source locations at once and then to rebuild the completed file once all the pieces have been downloaded. It is important to note that Bit Torrent is not a single piece of software but rather a protocol that is used by hundreds of different pieces of software. Bit Torrent is largely recognized as one of the best protocols for sending files over the internet and as such is used by many companies worldwide. There is no individual bit torrent site as the article makes it sound.
The most misleading section in the article is embodied in the first quote I shared with you. By stating that the FCC was attempting to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site” the author of this article is making a twofold attack on the FCC’s credibility. Firstly, by stating that the site traffic is being slowed to is a “file-sharing” site they make it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of a site that is used for illegal purposes. “file-sharing” is a term that is largely associated with illegality in the media. Secondly, by stating that Comcast is doing this to only one site makes it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of one lowly site that’s only having their traffic slowed.
So what was the actually situation like? In late 2007 many Comcast users began to notice some irregularities in their internet traffic. Several independent tests were ran and it was determined that Comcast was injecting false packets to prematurely end bit-torrent traffic on their networks. As already stated bit torrent works by breaking a file that needs to be sent into hundreds of little pieces and sending them. This means that eventually a piece has to be sent that says “alright I’m the last one you have the whole file”. What Comcast was doing was generating these false end packets and sending them to computers engaged in bit torrent activity thereby stopping that activity before the file was done transferring. This was reported to the FCC who decided that intentionally interrupting traffic based solely on the type of traffic it was overstepping their bounds. It has been estimated that some 40 percent of internet traffic is files being transferred using the bit torrent protocol. This means that Comcast was intentionally interrupting a very large amount of the traffic on their networks. A in-depth report of the tests can be found here: http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
Clearly this is a far different picture of Comcast’s activity then the article paints. Clearly Comcast’s actions were underhanded and the medias inaccurate reporting of the issue is hurting both the FCC’s credibility and public opinion of an important file transfer protocol. However this raises two very important questions, firstly why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, and if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor?
To address the first question, why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, we need to talk a little more about the internet. The internet is a massive number of computers and server connected by a global network of transfer lines. Just like the roadways that spider webs the United States, the transfer lines connecting all the computers and servers have a finite capacity for data transfer. Once maximum capacity is reached user’s data is cued to wait its turn for transfer and their internet speed decreases. If the section of the internet lines that Comcast controls become bogged down with too much traffic they have two choices. They can start cutting traffic or start building additional infrastructure to support the growing internet. Building additional infrastructure is very costly while cutting traffic is practically free. Bit Torrent which makes up the largest percentage of internet traffic makes an easy target. I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bit Torrent is also used by some people to transfer bootlegged or pirated software. Perhaps because of its diminished reputation Comcast felt that no one could object to them obstructing this traffic. In my mind this is somewhat like saying “Because roads are the primary way for stolen goods to be transferred in the United States they should be considered decidedly criminal and anyone using them is subject to treatment as a criminal.”
This brings us to our second question, if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor? This simple explanation is that the way the telecommunications act of 1996 is written supports Comcast’s claim that it’s their network and they can damn well do what they please. Because internet is not considered essential the FCC only has a loose jurisdiction over it. Clearly the act might be a little out of date. An update to it was proposed in 2005 but has yet to make its way through to approval and does not address the net neutrality issue.
So now that you are up to date on net neutrality let me say my piece on it. The internet is the greatest thing humanity has ever crated. It organizes quantities of data almost unfathomable. It encompasses most of the knowledge amassed by humanity. To allow this to be sliced up into the domains of different companies each trying to squeeze every penny possible out of it for the least cost would be a tragedy. Most other countries have recognized what an amazing thing the internet is and have spent large amounts of government funds to improve the information infrastructure in their countries. There are some notable acceptations to this rule. Australia has allowed internet service providers to carve up their country into tiny internet kingdoms, where traffic is limited based on which companies are willing to give the ISP’s the most cash. I don’t know about you but the internet is where I go when I am looking for answers. One question will lead to the next and I will spend hours reading and watching and learning, not for a project or assignment but because learning is amazing and it betters me as a person. I don’t want what I learn to be decided by the highest bidder. The internet must remain free and I trust my government to create and enforce laws using the least force required and to help fund the expansion and improvement of internet infrastructure in this country.
Before I can get into the specifics on why I personally feel that anything but net neutrality is wrong I feel that I must correct a number incorrect or wrong facts that have been circling the web about net neutrality and the appeal that has put it in the national spotlight. Here is an example from the Washingtons Posts website. It is an article about Comcast’s appeal to the FCC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040600742.html
I am going to point out a number of errors in the article. If you would like to read it feel free although it is not required to understand this next portion. The Washington Post article states that the FCC was trying to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site”. Later in the article they name the site as “the BitTorrent file sharing site”. Both of these claims are wildly inaccurate on propagate misinformation about the situation. It is first important to understand what Bit Torrent is. Bit Torrent if a file transfer protocol designed to move large files. It is basically a way for computers to transfer large files by breaking them into very small pieces and allowing the person downloading the file to pull pieces from many different source locations at once and then to rebuild the completed file once all the pieces have been downloaded. It is important to note that Bit Torrent is not a single piece of software but rather a protocol that is used by hundreds of different pieces of software. Bit Torrent is largely recognized as one of the best protocols for sending files over the internet and as such is used by many companies worldwide. There is no individual bit torrent site as the article makes it sound.
The most misleading section in the article is embodied in the first quote I shared with you. By stating that the FCC was attempting to stop Comcast from “slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site” the author of this article is making a twofold attack on the FCC’s credibility. Firstly, by stating that the site traffic is being slowed to is a “file-sharing” site they make it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of a site that is used for illegal purposes. “file-sharing” is a term that is largely associated with illegality in the media. Secondly, by stating that Comcast is doing this to only one site makes it sound like the FCC is coming out in defense of one lowly site that’s only having their traffic slowed.
So what was the actually situation like? In late 2007 many Comcast users began to notice some irregularities in their internet traffic. Several independent tests were ran and it was determined that Comcast was injecting false packets to prematurely end bit-torrent traffic on their networks. As already stated bit torrent works by breaking a file that needs to be sent into hundreds of little pieces and sending them. This means that eventually a piece has to be sent that says “alright I’m the last one you have the whole file”. What Comcast was doing was generating these false end packets and sending them to computers engaged in bit torrent activity thereby stopping that activity before the file was done transferring. This was reported to the FCC who decided that intentionally interrupting traffic based solely on the type of traffic it was overstepping their bounds. It has been estimated that some 40 percent of internet traffic is files being transferred using the bit torrent protocol. This means that Comcast was intentionally interrupting a very large amount of the traffic on their networks. A in-depth report of the tests can be found here: http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
Clearly this is a far different picture of Comcast’s activity then the article paints. Clearly Comcast’s actions were underhanded and the medias inaccurate reporting of the issue is hurting both the FCC’s credibility and public opinion of an important file transfer protocol. However this raises two very important questions, firstly why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, and if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor?
To address the first question, why did Comcast want to block this traffic if it was not illegal, we need to talk a little more about the internet. The internet is a massive number of computers and server connected by a global network of transfer lines. Just like the roadways that spider webs the United States, the transfer lines connecting all the computers and servers have a finite capacity for data transfer. Once maximum capacity is reached user’s data is cued to wait its turn for transfer and their internet speed decreases. If the section of the internet lines that Comcast controls become bogged down with too much traffic they have two choices. They can start cutting traffic or start building additional infrastructure to support the growing internet. Building additional infrastructure is very costly while cutting traffic is practically free. Bit Torrent which makes up the largest percentage of internet traffic makes an easy target. I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bit Torrent is also used by some people to transfer bootlegged or pirated software. Perhaps because of its diminished reputation Comcast felt that no one could object to them obstructing this traffic. In my mind this is somewhat like saying “Because roads are the primary way for stolen goods to be transferred in the United States they should be considered decidedly criminal and anyone using them is subject to treatment as a criminal.”
This brings us to our second question, if what Comcast did was so underhanded why did the first district court of appeals rule in their favor? This simple explanation is that the way the telecommunications act of 1996 is written supports Comcast’s claim that it’s their network and they can damn well do what they please. Because internet is not considered essential the FCC only has a loose jurisdiction over it. Clearly the act might be a little out of date. An update to it was proposed in 2005 but has yet to make its way through to approval and does not address the net neutrality issue.
So now that you are up to date on net neutrality let me say my piece on it. The internet is the greatest thing humanity has ever crated. It organizes quantities of data almost unfathomable. It encompasses most of the knowledge amassed by humanity. To allow this to be sliced up into the domains of different companies each trying to squeeze every penny possible out of it for the least cost would be a tragedy. Most other countries have recognized what an amazing thing the internet is and have spent large amounts of government funds to improve the information infrastructure in their countries. There are some notable acceptations to this rule. Australia has allowed internet service providers to carve up their country into tiny internet kingdoms, where traffic is limited based on which companies are willing to give the ISP’s the most cash. I don’t know about you but the internet is where I go when I am looking for answers. One question will lead to the next and I will spend hours reading and watching and learning, not for a project or assignment but because learning is amazing and it betters me as a person. I don’t want what I learn to be decided by the highest bidder. The internet must remain free and I trust my government to create and enforce laws using the least force required and to help fund the expansion and improvement of internet infrastructure in this country.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Here Comes Everbody Part 4 (I got mixed up and did the wrong blog. I will post on Shirky 3 tonight)
I was really struck by the idea of the cost of failure. I had never thought about it before but the one thing that really sucks about failing is the fact that you put resources into something that did not work out and you now have no way to get those resources back. Shirky talks at length in chapter ten about the advantages of free failure. Specifically the failure rate sourceforge.net applications is brought up. They state that only the top 25% of applications uploaded to source forge ever get downloaded. It is also pointed out that the majority of meetup.com groups fail. The born skeptic in me has a lot of trouble with concepts like this that are miss leading. The free access nature of many online sites encourage an "ooo its shiny" mentality. The average internet user is willing to sign up for most things on a whim. I would guess most of the sourceforge projects never got far enough along to have a name or concept for the software. Lets use another example to really illustrate the point I am getting at. I set up this blog so that I could complete assignments for DTC 375 at lovely Washington State University. I have yet to get a single comment on my writing and certainly have not become an overnight internet superstar. I have written (most) of my assignments and found an interesting way to reflect on what I have read. Once I am done with 375 I doubt that I will continue this blog. So if I was Shirky I would view this blog as one of the failures that allow for the occasional success. However this blog has fulfilled all the things I started it to do. In my mind that means its a success.
A discussion of Linux also ran through much of section 3. Mostly it pointed out how Linux had a distinct advantage over Windows in that it could innovate and add hundreds of new features to see which ones worked and not have to worry about the overhead of an R&D budget. The average PC user does not want hundreds of new features. Most computer users want to do 4 or 5 things on a computer. Ideally they would like these things to be very easy to do. A more advanced user is willing to sort through more options for more functionality. This is a lot of the reason that Macs are popular at home, Windows computers in the workplace, and Linux and Unix computers for specialized needs and network management. I have made a high quality graph to illustrate what I am getting at:
As the graph shows each computer has its own niche. For this reason you will find that none of the Major OS's get all that concerned about what the other ones do. They each know what they do best and it does not look to change in the next couple of years. This is another great example of why the failure to success ratio for open source software is misleading. Most people only really want one of something. There are a lot of really great web browsers out there for free. Unfortunately for all the others I prefer to use just one at a time. Most of the home users use one or two pieces of software a day. They find what they like and they stick with it. So it stands to figure that there is a lot of serviceable software out there that just does not get used. I guess the hart of what I am getting at here is that popularity and success seem to be directly linked in Shirky's evaluation of items. This seems like a poor measure of things that are more about expression and creativity than functionality and use. Microsoft is not concerned with the prevalence of open source OS's because they know that their customers are there for features that they are familiar. They don't want all the bells and whistles. In any case I feel like I have degraded into ranting which is not a very good response so I will finish with this. If a man in a costume is running through the woods hitting trees with a sword while one person watches, the logical assumption is that the costumed man is crazy. If the same man does the same thing while a million people watch, the logical assumption is that the costumed man is a movie star. As Tom Cruise proves it certainly does not prove that the man is any less crazy. The mob mentality is strong on the internet and vaults some products and people to fame over others for no discernible reason. This does not mean that those not picked by the fickle mob are any less successful in what they set out to accomplish.
One last chart for the road. Sure he's in the middle but that does not seem like such a bad place to be.
A discussion of Linux also ran through much of section 3. Mostly it pointed out how Linux had a distinct advantage over Windows in that it could innovate and add hundreds of new features to see which ones worked and not have to worry about the overhead of an R&D budget. The average PC user does not want hundreds of new features. Most computer users want to do 4 or 5 things on a computer. Ideally they would like these things to be very easy to do. A more advanced user is willing to sort through more options for more functionality. This is a lot of the reason that Macs are popular at home, Windows computers in the workplace, and Linux and Unix computers for specialized needs and network management. I have made a high quality graph to illustrate what I am getting at:
As the graph shows each computer has its own niche. For this reason you will find that none of the Major OS's get all that concerned about what the other ones do. They each know what they do best and it does not look to change in the next couple of years. This is another great example of why the failure to success ratio for open source software is misleading. Most people only really want one of something. There are a lot of really great web browsers out there for free. Unfortunately for all the others I prefer to use just one at a time. Most of the home users use one or two pieces of software a day. They find what they like and they stick with it. So it stands to figure that there is a lot of serviceable software out there that just does not get used. I guess the hart of what I am getting at here is that popularity and success seem to be directly linked in Shirky's evaluation of items. This seems like a poor measure of things that are more about expression and creativity than functionality and use. Microsoft is not concerned with the prevalence of open source OS's because they know that their customers are there for features that they are familiar. They don't want all the bells and whistles. In any case I feel like I have degraded into ranting which is not a very good response so I will finish with this. If a man in a costume is running through the woods hitting trees with a sword while one person watches, the logical assumption is that the costumed man is crazy. If the same man does the same thing while a million people watch, the logical assumption is that the costumed man is a movie star. As Tom Cruise proves it certainly does not prove that the man is any less crazy. The mob mentality is strong on the internet and vaults some products and people to fame over others for no discernible reason. This does not mean that those not picked by the fickle mob are any less successful in what they set out to accomplish.
One last chart for the road. Sure he's in the middle but that does not seem like such a bad place to be.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Fixing America Tapscott Part 3
Tapscott starts out this part of his book talking about the Net Generation and Politics. I feel like more people of my age group are connected to politics than ever before. I voted in 2008 (The first time I was able to) and I felt empowered. Whats more I was informed. I would go so far as to say that anyone who is sufficiently immersed in web culture would have had a hard time not being informed. Information about the election was everywhere on the web. I spent hours and hours reading about different sides of issues and forming my oppinon about who to vote for and what to support. When Tapscott talks about the Net Generation gaining empowerment from being experts on something from an early age that their parents knew nothing about (Computers and the internet) I am not sure he full sees how far this effect will reach. Being an expert on the internet has given the Net Generation the power to trust their own brains. We don't want to adopt someone's political viewpoints as our own, rather we want to form our own viewpoints. My parents are very liberal and I think that 50 years ago this would have ended up meaning that I too would become very liberal. Today this means that liberal viewpoints are the first I question. I still feel like I fall broadly into the liberal category however my viewpoints are very different than my parents and last state election I voted for a republican governor.
I guess what I am really getting at is that Tapscott is correct in saying that the Net Generation likes to be involved but even more then that we have strong communal values. These values mean that those who consider themselves democrats or republicans in the net generation have more in common with one another then with conventional party lines or even their own parents. Most of us have lived out whole lives hearing about corporate corruption, mounting national debt, America being hated abroad and social injustice. Things that are important to almost all net geners would have previously been seen as the domain of one political party or another. More then anything I want to know and I think most net geners do to why it takes so damn long to get anything done in office. The whole country has been going downhill while the baboons in Washington DC flounder about. We want to see results and at some point this want for faster government will become a reality.
I guess what I am really getting at is that Tapscott is correct in saying that the Net Generation likes to be involved but even more then that we have strong communal values. These values mean that those who consider themselves democrats or republicans in the net generation have more in common with one another then with conventional party lines or even their own parents. Most of us have lived out whole lives hearing about corporate corruption, mounting national debt, America being hated abroad and social injustice. Things that are important to almost all net geners would have previously been seen as the domain of one political party or another. More then anything I want to know and I think most net geners do to why it takes so damn long to get anything done in office. The whole country has been going downhill while the baboons in Washington DC flounder about. We want to see results and at some point this want for faster government will become a reality.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Better Pencil 7-12
Sometimes I just want to be left alone. My farther told me that my grandfather used to unplug the telephone during dinner. He hated the thought that anyone with his number could choose to call and disrupt his family during a meal. I really feel like I agree with this. Baron presents a great deal of information about different digital mediums of communication in chapter 8. He presents them using language I associate with selling a car. This car has airbags and abs, that car has automatic windows. IM is instantaneous while e-mail can be ignored. All of it makes me slightly uncomfortable. I like choosing to talk to people. Contrary to the popular saying, talk is not cheep. I like to choose when to engage in conversations with people because it takes a lot of effort to have a good conversation and I don't often want to squander this effort on the amazing thing your dog just did. Really I would say that most of the time I just want to be left to myself.
Texting is even worse then IM. I would say that for most people my age texting has really replaced IM. I find this really annoying because it means that your always connected. You can always close down an IM program and be left in peace. However shutting off my phone is much harder. I want to have it on so I can respond to emergency's but this also means that I have no way to stop being pestered by texts. I wish there way a way to put a polite message on my phone letting people know that I am not accepting texts at this time and to please try back later.
I find this whole book somewhat interesting because the author obviously loves this stuff. You can hear the excitement in his voice when he talks about all these new ways to talk to other people. But to me there not new ways to talk to other people. The are more or less similar to how communication has worked for most of my life. I find myself annoyed with these "new" communication technologies in much the same way that I am sure the phone bugged my grandfather. What right do others have to interrupt my peace on a whim. I feel like all these new technologies are pushing us to disclose facts about ourselves that really are no ones business. Face book is another grate example of this. It has a place for me to put what I am thinking or feeling. No one really wants you to put down what your actually thinking or feeling tough because that would be weird. Could you imagine if you logged into face book and saw someone had put "Tim Somebody is thinking about how he would really like to murder his landlord, he even has the perfect spot for the body". What is expected in that space is for you to put something fun and lighthearted.
When it comes right down to it I feel like the humanity is slowly leeching away from our communication. When your always connected that connection looses some of its meaning. There is a section in things fall apart that mentions why people gather together to watch the moon. Its not because they cannot watch the moon from there own hut, because surely they can do that, but rather they do so because it is good to gather. What happens when were all gathering all the time? We certainly wouldn't want to all live in the same hut but that is where technology is taking us.
Texting is even worse then IM. I would say that for most people my age texting has really replaced IM. I find this really annoying because it means that your always connected. You can always close down an IM program and be left in peace. However shutting off my phone is much harder. I want to have it on so I can respond to emergency's but this also means that I have no way to stop being pestered by texts. I wish there way a way to put a polite message on my phone letting people know that I am not accepting texts at this time and to please try back later.
I find this whole book somewhat interesting because the author obviously loves this stuff. You can hear the excitement in his voice when he talks about all these new ways to talk to other people. But to me there not new ways to talk to other people. The are more or less similar to how communication has worked for most of my life. I find myself annoyed with these "new" communication technologies in much the same way that I am sure the phone bugged my grandfather. What right do others have to interrupt my peace on a whim. I feel like all these new technologies are pushing us to disclose facts about ourselves that really are no ones business. Face book is another grate example of this. It has a place for me to put what I am thinking or feeling. No one really wants you to put down what your actually thinking or feeling tough because that would be weird. Could you imagine if you logged into face book and saw someone had put "Tim Somebody is thinking about how he would really like to murder his landlord, he even has the perfect spot for the body". What is expected in that space is for you to put something fun and lighthearted.
When it comes right down to it I feel like the humanity is slowly leeching away from our communication. When your always connected that connection looses some of its meaning. There is a section in things fall apart that mentions why people gather together to watch the moon. Its not because they cannot watch the moon from there own hut, because surely they can do that, but rather they do so because it is good to gather. What happens when were all gathering all the time? We certainly wouldn't want to all live in the same hut but that is where technology is taking us.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A Better Pencil 1,3,5
After reading chapters One, Three, and Five in "A Better Pencil" I find myself appreciating my computer even more. I feel, like Baron says, that the closest my brain comes to direct thought output is when I am sitting in front of a computer. I do not understand how someone could prefer to write with a device as distracting as a pencil. To me a pencil is much like the clay tablets was to many of Barons students. It is intricately linked to art. A pencil wants to draw pretty, free flowing lines, and it seems like a travesty to try to confine these line to something as plain as writing. When I try to take notes with pencils all I end up doing is doodling in the margins.
On the flip side of the same coin I feel like when it comes to the business of imparting information that text, with its identical letters, does a much better job. When I take notes with a computer I end up with notes that are much more complete and have no doodles cluttering them up.
This whole idea, supports of old mediums holding contempt for new mediums, reminds me of a section of "The Stand" by Steven King. In the particular section I am thinking of one of the main characters was involved in a nasty motorcycle crash. As he lay dieing (a slow process that takes several days)King takes you back to his child hood. You learn of his ambitions to be a writer and how he spent years perfecting his handwriting because he knew that the closest his thoughts could come directly to paper was a pencil. Eventually he is forced to recognize the convenience of the type writer and starts to use one. As the character lays dieing he begins to write about this childhood in a notebook. The further he writes back about his childhood the closer he comes to death, and his once perfect handwriting becomes childish once more as his strangth flees.
While I don't feel that the pencil is the closest my brain comes to writing. I do understand the character reluctance to change and the the frustration he must have felt about his deteriorating handwriting.
Whats new and better is never as comforting as what is known and acceptable. I made my myspace account when I was 17 and for a long times hated the thought of switching to facebook. Now after using facebook I really have come to realize that I just don't like publishing facts about my life quite so openly as these sites encourage.
I guess what I am getting at is that the smart person does eventually adapt to new mediums, but he or she also does not forget that first medium that he or she loved so much. Occasionally, when time permits, you will slip back to that old medium and use it for something unimportant. Even once someone is certain a new medium is better than the old one they wills still have place in their heart for that old medium. If I was given all the Cherries in the world I think I would really want a banana.
On the flip side of the same coin I feel like when it comes to the business of imparting information that text, with its identical letters, does a much better job. When I take notes with a computer I end up with notes that are much more complete and have no doodles cluttering them up.
This whole idea, supports of old mediums holding contempt for new mediums, reminds me of a section of "The Stand" by Steven King. In the particular section I am thinking of one of the main characters was involved in a nasty motorcycle crash. As he lay dieing (a slow process that takes several days)King takes you back to his child hood. You learn of his ambitions to be a writer and how he spent years perfecting his handwriting because he knew that the closest his thoughts could come directly to paper was a pencil. Eventually he is forced to recognize the convenience of the type writer and starts to use one. As the character lays dieing he begins to write about this childhood in a notebook. The further he writes back about his childhood the closer he comes to death, and his once perfect handwriting becomes childish once more as his strangth flees.
While I don't feel that the pencil is the closest my brain comes to writing. I do understand the character reluctance to change and the the frustration he must have felt about his deteriorating handwriting.
Whats new and better is never as comforting as what is known and acceptable. I made my myspace account when I was 17 and for a long times hated the thought of switching to facebook. Now after using facebook I really have come to realize that I just don't like publishing facts about my life quite so openly as these sites encourage.
I guess what I am getting at is that the smart person does eventually adapt to new mediums, but he or she also does not forget that first medium that he or she loved so much. Occasionally, when time permits, you will slip back to that old medium and use it for something unimportant. Even once someone is certain a new medium is better than the old one they wills still have place in their heart for that old medium. If I was given all the Cherries in the world I think I would really want a banana.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Things fall apart
Reading is one of my favorite pass times. I think that the ability to pass on knowledge from one person to another over hundreds of years is one of the crowning glory's of the human race. The ability to continually streamline the spread of information has fueled the increasing pace of its advancement since the first crude ledgers. If once humans worshiped the forest, or the earth, or the sun, we now worship the letter and this great store of knowledge we have amassed. If I don't know something I can tap into this store of knowledge and find out about it. I can find out about something that happened 20 minutes ago or 20,000 years ago. This reverence of words, ideas, and knowledge is the prejudice that Things Fall Apart must overcome before it can show us a conflict between orality and literature.
To this effect Chinua Achebe spends the first hundred and sixty seven pages of his book showing us the humans behind orality. He shows us a culture through the lens of Okonkwo. Okonkwo is a flawed man, but not in a inhuman way. He shares the same flaws that many of us see in our friends and ignore in ourselves. He lives in a rich and wonderful world utterly devoid of writing. I am hitting that point on the head now but it is utterly ignored in the book. We see him grow and prosper, over come trials, folly, and grieve all without lifting a pen or reading a letter. At times I found myself disgusted by some of the terrible things that happened everyday, and at other times I marveled at the laws and order that existed without writing. It is hard not to rally behind someone who works so hard for what they want in life.
After a hundred and sixty seven pages of normal life Achebe introduces a new force into our oral world. This new force is not evil or malevolent but is just there. In this new force, the church and government, we see all the things we left behind shortly after opening the book. We see a thirst for the spread of knowledge, a respect for new ideas, and a sure stubbornness in the idea that the written way is the only way. As the story carries on, you come to see the government and the church as cold and uncaring. They have laws to tell them what they should do so why bother feeling passion about something? The closest you come to seeing an emotion in the forces of literature is when Reverend James Smith is tempted to run in fear in the face of the village spirits.
All in all when I put the book down I marvel at a story, delivered through literature, that is able to non-aggressively question its own medium. As I sit here, communicating to all who read this, in a room by myself I think back to part of the book. At his departure fest from his motherland one of Okonkwo's kinsmen saws "When we gather in the moonlit village ground it is not because of the moon. Every man cans see the moon from his own compound. We come together because it is good for kinsmen to do so". I wonder if now as humans we spend to much time watching the moon alone? Did we give up our humanity for letters, and if so was it worth it?
To this effect Chinua Achebe spends the first hundred and sixty seven pages of his book showing us the humans behind orality. He shows us a culture through the lens of Okonkwo. Okonkwo is a flawed man, but not in a inhuman way. He shares the same flaws that many of us see in our friends and ignore in ourselves. He lives in a rich and wonderful world utterly devoid of writing. I am hitting that point on the head now but it is utterly ignored in the book. We see him grow and prosper, over come trials, folly, and grieve all without lifting a pen or reading a letter. At times I found myself disgusted by some of the terrible things that happened everyday, and at other times I marveled at the laws and order that existed without writing. It is hard not to rally behind someone who works so hard for what they want in life.
After a hundred and sixty seven pages of normal life Achebe introduces a new force into our oral world. This new force is not evil or malevolent but is just there. In this new force, the church and government, we see all the things we left behind shortly after opening the book. We see a thirst for the spread of knowledge, a respect for new ideas, and a sure stubbornness in the idea that the written way is the only way. As the story carries on, you come to see the government and the church as cold and uncaring. They have laws to tell them what they should do so why bother feeling passion about something? The closest you come to seeing an emotion in the forces of literature is when Reverend James Smith is tempted to run in fear in the face of the village spirits.
All in all when I put the book down I marvel at a story, delivered through literature, that is able to non-aggressively question its own medium. As I sit here, communicating to all who read this, in a room by myself I think back to part of the book. At his departure fest from his motherland one of Okonkwo's kinsmen saws "When we gather in the moonlit village ground it is not because of the moon. Every man cans see the moon from his own compound. We come together because it is good for kinsmen to do so". I wonder if now as humans we spend to much time watching the moon alone? Did we give up our humanity for letters, and if so was it worth it?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Ong Second Half
Midway through chapter four Ong discusses how even after a culture has had language for a significant amount of time they still tend to have an oral mindset. He illustrates his point with and example having to do with customs dues and the port of Sandwich. He says the dispute was settled by getting some of the oldest and most trustworthy people from the two different locations and having them recount how it had always been done as far back as they can remember. The idea that these people counted spoken word above written language seems almost incomprehensible to me. I buy most things off the internet anymore and I read what I need to know about a product before I buy it. The idea of settling a discrepancy on the word of someone else over a law or something written down seems ridiculous. One of the biggest reasons I like to buy things online is because I don’t have to go in and have a face to face meeting with a sales clerk. I feel like if I go in and look at something in person and ask questions it somehow obligates me to buy the item. In short when there is so much face to face interaction it makes me very uncomfortable. I know that person would like nothing better than for me to buy whatever it is I is looking at and so they would be more willing to bend the truth. Human character seems so much more motivated than writing. Because writing seems so un human it seems more trustworthy.
This is probably one of the thing Plato was warning about. Often times it is difficult to see the motivation behind writing quite so clearly as it can be seen in talking to someone. I think the more writing we are exposed to in our lives the easier it become to forget that at some point someone had to write it and they wrote it for a reason. There have been a lot of new stories lately about companies faking customer reviews of their products on Amazon and other major web retailers. Even knowing that there is a good chance that one of the reviews I read could be fake I still trust them more than a sales clerk. I have realized that there is no magical universal other out there writing these reviews, that these are people with something to gain at some point, and still I feel like they are more objective about it than anyone in person would be. In this respect I feel like I have come very far from humanities oral roots. I trust what I read precisely because I see it as non-human and as such freed from human flaws such as greed and malice.
While this is all true of shopping for me, when I take on the greater responsibility of shopping for solutions at work I feel like I need to speak to a human being. I work in computer securities and feel like a product is not good unless I can talk to someone who has used it, or experience it firsthand. I don’t want to read reviews but rather talk to someone. I feel like while a sales clerk at a store has no trouble lying to me to make the sale, a sales rep who is selling me software he will then have to support is much less likely to lie. His involvement goes beyond the sale. When talking about big important purchases that affect the people on the network I am securing as well as myself I want human interaction. I cannot really explain why that is but I think part of it is if something goes wrong I have someone to go back to and say “look this is not how you said it would be”. So I think even as we move forward as humans the really important problems still call for that oral interaction.
This is probably one of the thing Plato was warning about. Often times it is difficult to see the motivation behind writing quite so clearly as it can be seen in talking to someone. I think the more writing we are exposed to in our lives the easier it become to forget that at some point someone had to write it and they wrote it for a reason. There have been a lot of new stories lately about companies faking customer reviews of their products on Amazon and other major web retailers. Even knowing that there is a good chance that one of the reviews I read could be fake I still trust them more than a sales clerk. I have realized that there is no magical universal other out there writing these reviews, that these are people with something to gain at some point, and still I feel like they are more objective about it than anyone in person would be. In this respect I feel like I have come very far from humanities oral roots. I trust what I read precisely because I see it as non-human and as such freed from human flaws such as greed and malice.
While this is all true of shopping for me, when I take on the greater responsibility of shopping for solutions at work I feel like I need to speak to a human being. I work in computer securities and feel like a product is not good unless I can talk to someone who has used it, or experience it firsthand. I don’t want to read reviews but rather talk to someone. I feel like while a sales clerk at a store has no trouble lying to me to make the sale, a sales rep who is selling me software he will then have to support is much less likely to lie. His involvement goes beyond the sale. When talking about big important purchases that affect the people on the network I am securing as well as myself I want human interaction. I cannot really explain why that is but I think part of it is if something goes wrong I have someone to go back to and say “look this is not how you said it would be”. So I think even as we move forward as humans the really important problems still call for that oral interaction.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Thoughts on Ong Chapters 1-3
While reading through these chapters I really got a chance to maul over a concept that had not ever occurred to me previously. The idea that the thought of humans could be altered so much by the mediums they use to communicate in their daily lives. I have always figured that thought is though and it goes about the same for everyone. Some people are able to think more quickly and by doing so are able to approach a problem form more angles and come up with an answer to a problem first. I always assumed that given enough time everyone would eventually work their way to an answer. Ong is saying that there is a distinct break in think between those who are from primary oral cultures and those from literate cultures. This point is illustrated with a series of interviews that I found to be very convincing. I felt that the idea that many of those from oral communities saw little point in trying to describe something like a tree to someone who had never seen one. It did a really good job of showing how much these people lived in the current. There were trees where they lived and you could see them any time you please so why would you want to tell someone what a tree looked like. I could see how this break in thought process between literate cultures and oral cultures could seem like different manners of cogitation. However I think the idea is taken too far when discussing how people from non oral communities would here some of their internal thoughts as external guidance and made them more likely to believe in divine powers. I feel like there is a contestant push to feel like those who came before us were not as smart or as capable as we are now. I don’t think this is the case. Writing has given us the ability to store knowledge and pass it along in a much simpler fashion so that many individuals in literate societies now are taught a whole host of facts and figures. This allows us to look back to the achievements of the past, such as crop rotation, and minimize those achievements. Everyone knows that now so the people who “discovered it” must not have been as smart as we are now. While in actuality individual human intelligence has remained static for some time while human knowledge as a whole has grown. I would say that this growth in human knowledge has a lot to do with writing and the ability to save our knowledge efficiently from one generation to another. Before writing there a lot more that had to be remembered all the time just to survive. Now we don’t need to pass along information like which plants are poisonous or which neighbors might be likely to attack us in our sleep. We accept that that information is already part of human knowledge and somewhere along the line someone is checking current events against this store of human knowledge. As this body of human knowledge grows our time in school is spent less and less on learning knowledge and more on learning how to access the knowledge that is already stored. We start by using the same simple patterns to learn the basics that oral cultures use to pass along all information. The ABC song is a great example of this. It is used to teach kids who cannot yet read all the letters they will need. It is patterned and rhymes making it easy to fit into the natural cognitive process of humans. Once this is learned we advance to reading and then to discerning what is worth reading and finally how to use the body of human knowledge to form new knowledge and add back to the body of knowledge. It makes me wonder what the next step will be. Many science fiction books, such as Battlefield earth, suppose that the next logical step is to cut reading out of the equation. Instead of reading we will develop a method to beam information directly into our heads. It is impossible to imagine how this will affect the way we think but it will shake up the world in the same manner writing did. Those people who have devoted their lives to being the gardeners who care for the tree of human knowledge, Scholars and PhD’s, will seem to have wasted their lives. I wonder if we will seem as primitive with our writing to future peoples as past peoples and their memorization seem to us.
In addition to this I think it is extremely funny when Ong refers to your mom jokes as competitions in which "one opponent tries to outdo the other in vilifying the others mother" I think this is the best definition I have ever heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
