I will be the first to say I cannot wait for the presentation on Tuesday.  I just finished Computer Lib/Dream Machines by Nelson and am pretty impressed.  This was a much easier read than the latter two we finished.  I gathered quite a few “nuggets” from it though, and am thoroughly content.  (Sorry if I accidentally steal one Lauren…)

“The chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously.”

“Computers are not everything, they are just an aspect of everything.”

“Knowledge is power and so it tends to be hoarded.”

“…computers will be embraced in every presentational medium and thoughtful medium very soon.”

“Technology is an expression of man’s dreams.”

My Favorite:  ”Schooling systematically ruins things for us, wiping out these interests; the last thing to be ruined determines your profession.”

“…everyone seems to agree Mankind is on the brink of a revolution in the way information is handled.”

And, most impressively predicted:  ”I think that when the real media o the future arrive, the smallest child will know it right away (and perhaps first).”

Nelson’s predictions were amazingly accurate, although a little biased (or should I say a lot biased) towards computer learning.  He often denounces dialogue, which I find the most helpful form of teaching, personally, and he denounces the school system for being boring and archaic.  While it is boring, those who are going to succeed and, particularly, those who value knowledge will already be doing this anyway.  For the kids who fail now, notwithstanding those who are truly having trouble, school is just another waste of time; these kids do not try hard enough.  They do not try because they do not care, and they probably never will.  Back to the essay, though:  Nelson effectively grabs the reader’s attention and presents an effectual perspective of NEW MEDIA and its probable impact on society.  I also enjoyed his small bit on “Fantic space.”  Borrowing a term from Pudovkin and Eisenstein, two film makers from Russia, Nelson illustrates the virtual world, one found in the computer, as “fantic space,” reserved for information.

T. Hales

P.S. I enjoyed the felt-tip drawings throughout the piece.  They really added some pizzazz.

This was my thought as I read an opinion article in the New York Times this past weekend.  A man named James Othmer was adamantly against the President’s use of twitter in his campaign, saying to “use more than 140 characters” when describing the complex health reform.  It is hard to say, while reading the editorial, if Mr. Othmer is against new media itself, or if he is simply contending against Obama’s (other than personal) use of the site.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14othmer.html is the site, if you would like to visit it and form your own opinion.  It is clear to me that despite the clear benefits of utilizing social media to augment human facilities, many are still paranoid.  With even a program like twitter, which seems harmless and simple, people can gain influence.  In a social medium like the internet, everyone becomes equal, it’s like utopia, only less organized.

-T. Hales

This essay was, obviously, more technical than the others we have read.  It focuses heavily on the actual technologies that, in the sixties, man wished to have in computers.  I notice however, Licklider’s dismay when he states “There was only one kind of organism–man–and the rest [were] there only to help him,” (speaking of computers).  Though this was in the sixties and computers have come far since; I can’t help but think we are still at this level.  Technically, the interaction process is much more advanced now, but I still feel as though my computer is simply “an extension of me,” and even this is a stretch.  The bare bones truth about computer-human relations is commensalism.  We take and take, reaping benefit after benefit at no expense to the computer, but with no praise, gift, or prize for it either.  The very thought is somewhat ridiculous.

The idea of computers being in complete symbiosis is a little terrifying for me, actually.  Licklider even addresses this as a possibility, saying “Man-computer symbiosis is probably not the ultimate paradigm for [technology].  It seems entirely possible that, in due course, electronic ‘machines’ will outdo the human brain in most of the functions we now consider exclusively within its province.”  Essentially, we (as humans) will become obsolete; an archaic folly which computers may, someday, destroy.  We may always remain the dominant species, but my question is–will we always be the dominant technology?  Think long and hard, it may determine your very future.

T. Hales

 Finished the essay by Vannevar Bush entitled “As We May Think;” I can’t help but wondering what the world would now be like if his predictions did not come true.  For some background information, Bush explores the idea of a compressed storage of human knowledge.  More profoundly however, he proposes a system with which one may find only the information one needs–the primary job of the modern day computer.  Another idea of his which blew me away, literally, was his idea of an interaction system on the memex.  Bush stated that “The human mind…operates by association” and infers that the filters which we work with to ascertain information should do so as well.  Compounding this, the input system, wherein one uses a stylus to select and make nots, reflects the tactile nature of humans and their longing for some sort of haptic or analog feedback.  It is quite amazing.