The end of Digi-Civ

I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting when this class started. The idea of a history class centered around technology seemed somewhat of an oxymoron, but I was really surprised to see how much the digital concepts we discussed in class turned up throughout the centuries. More surprising, though, was how different the format of the class was, and how much I learned from it. Taking this class has really opened up my eyes to changes that have been going on in the world, ad I hope to change the way I learn, interact, and share because of it. But now, let's look into how I learned to meet the course requirements.

History:
The Internet Before Computers
The Motor of the Internet
Smartphones and the Digital Divide

The way we studied the historical concepts in this class was amazing. This was the first class I've taken where students were allowed to take control of the topics, do their own research, and share their knowledge with the class. I was able to learn a lot more about my century this way, because I was able to look into the areas that interested me the most and focus on that. Classmates who did the same and shared the highlights of their research made a good overview of the major themes, events, and people of those time periods, and how they related to the class. My reading for the class, "Ghost Map" was also a really interesting read into the time period. While there wasn't as much of a connection between my eBook chapter (openness) and the historical content, there were some examples we drew from, and the history played a lot into the other chapters.

Core Concepts:
Crowd Sourcing and Crime
Forced Open Source
If You Give a Business a Cookie...
Accessability

I feel these concepts made up a significant chunk of my learning this semester. Ever since I first booted up linux I've been an advocate of openness, but this class took my vision beyond the computer screen and showed me how the concepts that have become common place in the digital world can, and should, be applied in the physical as well. Not just openness, but all the concepts, including participation ( Crowd Sourcing and Crime ), information (If You Give a Business a Cookie...), and control (Accessability). I found classmates and professors posts highlighting these concepts throughout history and in modern society extremely insightful, and now I myself see them popping up everywhere. I've gained a deeper understanding of what openness really means, the deeper and further reaching effects of participation and control, and the true importance of information, both throughout time and in our ever-changing digital society.

Digital Literacy:

Henry Darger
Weaponized Media
Open Sources
Invitations

I feel like this class was a trial-by-fire in learning digital literacy. We were thrown into the deep end of connectivity with a goal and a deadline, and tried not to drown in the see of information. Honestly, though, the experience of filtering out who to follow on Google+, tracking down just the right information, keeping this blog, making presentations- it's been quite invaluable. Often in classes we're sheltered from the 'real world' in an ivory tower where we write our papers, turn them in, and pat ourselves on the back because a professor thought we wrote well. This semester, though, the leashes we had grown so used to were cut off. When I was told to go study the 18th century and present what I found, I was pretty lost. There were 100 years in there! Which ones am I supposed to research? But that's the point, I guess. I slowly realized that I was supposed to dig in and find what I liked. I bounced it off people around me, got their feedback, and shared it with the class via my blog, google+, and our presenations. Later, with the eBook, we took that model and blew it up to a larger scale, researching concepts like Openness, contacting actual professionals, and broadcasting what we made to the world. This class has really taught me how to find the right ideas, create my own, and share them in the right ways.

Self Directed Learning:
Under Your Nose

I feel this is kind of covered by the digital literacy- if you're not digitally literate, you're going to have a hard time learning on your own. The opposite is also true, if you're not learning on your own, then your digital tools are being used the wrong way. Everything we learned in this class about self-directed learning was a tool to help us learn about our time periods and digital concepts. So, if I had to point to a particular blog post about self-directed learning, I'd point to that one up there. However, the blog as a whole, as well as everything I threw up on my google+ feed, is a lot better evidence of how I grew and learned about self directed learning. I also had plenty of opportunities to try out what I'd learned here in other classes - it's amazing how much info is out there about computer science! I was completely floored.

Collaboration:
On the Shoulders of Giants

Most of what I learned about collaboration was learned during the eBook writing process. And during the writing process, I didn't post write many blog posts, because I constantly talked with the people who were writing it, and our work was released every monday anyways. Don't let that fool you, though, as this class's experience has been one of a kind in learning how to collaborate. I was able to look into how large projects like linux and other open software collaborate, and we applied some of their principles in our own group. I became a 'gateway' for the ebook, David for the presentation, Caleb for the social graph, and Alena for the visuals. By each of us focusing on less, we could accomplish more. I also learned the importance of collaborating with others outside your group. The input and feedback others gave us was invaluable in guiding our efforts and ideas. It was kind of a blow when my focus, the ebook, was delayed until after the class was over, but that in itself was a lesson in collaboration - just because you have a focus, doesn't mean you get to ignore everything else. Fortunately we were all still included in each others projects, and I was able to help out (albeit not as much as I would've liked) with the other projects we were working on. In short, while my experience with collaborating had its ups and downs, I learned a ton.


So that's how I met the learning requirements for this class! I learned a lot outside of those, and I'd like to write about that too, but I'm afraid that will have to wait until after finals. Best of luck everyone, and it's been a pleasure delving into the digital depths with you.

Event invitations evalutation

Unfortunately, nobody I invited came to our amazing exposition on digital society. I thought I did a pretty good job of inviting people, and I found quite a few that were pretty interested, but I guess not! I didn't see anyone on the twitter stream from my invite list, and though I didn't check the uStream or whatever it was called, I doubt anyone showed up there either. I guess people just have a lot on their plates, and an invitation to a 'digital revolution' isn't what they're looking for in on a thursday night. However, it was a good experience to reach out and spread the word. Here's some of the high-lights from my invitation efforts.

1) One of the first people I invited, I didn't actually get the name of, though I did post about him last week. I overheard him going off about a paradigm shift in education, the opening of the publishing industry, the need to educate kids in content creation - Golden! I thought he'd come for sure, but in retrospect I should've done more than show him the website and extend an oral invitation. As old-school as they are, sometimes fliers serve as a really handy reminder.

2) I emailed Dale Stephens from Uncollege.org earlier in the semester about something for a blog post, and he emailed me back! So, I emailed him again, inviting him to come check out what we've got on Open Education and the changes it could bring. In his defense, he says on his website that it takes him a while to get to new emails. Too bad 1 weeks notice isn't enough, because I think he would've had some really good input!

3) Randall Munroe, from xkcd.com - While he doesn't have any particular ties to openness specifically, he's a little bit involved in everything that's going on in the 'interwob'. It's easy to tell from his comic and blog that he's passionate and knowledgeable about copyright, open source software, and open science. Also, I went to school with his brother! Unfortunately, this small tie was not enough to illicit either a response or participation. Oh well.

4) Eric Raymond - I hold no grudges against this man for not getting back or participating, because he has already done so darn much for openness. I've followed him on Google+ for the past couple of weeks, and after referencing a lot of his work for the Openness chapter, I felt it a good idea to invite him, citing how his works had been central in my research and linking to the website. It's okay Eric. You can check it out when you're finished with your next open-source project.

5) Prof. Roper - The head of Computer Science for undergraduates here at BYU, I invited him along with the rest of his CS 124 class. He seemed kind of interested when I explained what it was to his class, and recommended everyone show up for the refreshments, but looks like brownies weren't a big enough of a draw.

6) Ping Chu, my friend's dad, is a system analyst for Capitol 1. He's an extremely intelligent man, heavily involved in computers, and even though he lives on the opposite end of the continent, I thought it highly likely he would show some interest. I did invite him via facebook, though, so he probably didn't check it in time. I did invite 100+ other people on facebook, but I haven't heard anything back from them either. Maybe facebook just isn't that great for this kind of thing?

7) I take that back, I got feedback from two people on facebook. Although, both people had already been invited by others (six degrees of seperation?) When I did get feedback on this event, the further people were from the actual locale, the less excitement they showed. I tried encouraging people to participate online via stream or twitter, but lets be realistic - most of the people I know think twitter is retarded, and I can't say I disagree entirely.

8) I also invited my roommates! They're actually nice guys, I promise, but they aren't the most technical of people. Thus, when invited to a seminar on how digital openness will change society, they looked confused, asked what digits were, and went back to playing with rocks. Honestly, though, they aren't interested in the digital world. Ironic, since they spend so much time on it...

9) I invited all my friends who had technology related majors, IT, IS, CS, etc. They all though it was an interesting idea, and since they actually use twitter, I fully expected them to show up. Unfortunately, they were too busy celebrating the last day of classes to hop online and 'tweet' on into our presentation.

10) The day off, after getting little to no response to the event, I started inviting random people in desperation. I'd spent a semester working in this class, and I wanted people to hear about what we've learned, gosh darn it! I got mixed responses from strangers, ranging from confusion about what exactly 'openness' was to the more tech-savvy's excitement about connecting with anything that resembled Linux in real life. A few people gave maybes, and one or two people perked up at the word 'refreshments'. Maybe next time there's an event like this, you should put pizza on the posters instead of Uncle Sam.

So that's who I invited! I shook the dust of an old twitter account I made years ago just for the event, and tried to stir up some conversation there. I saw a few non-classmates show up in the stream, which was pretty exciting! Mostly college students, but the word was getting out there! Like I said at the beginning, I didn't see much response from those I personally invited, but it was good to see that some people did show up. I can't imagine how many invites were extended to get the number of people who showed up there, but I can imagine how hard it would've been without social media. I still would've really appreciated having a flier or two to hand out, and I don't think I saw a single poster on campus for this. Digital campaigning is great, but sometimes you just can't beat spreading the world the old fashioned way.

Openness under your nose

Let's all pretend I've been posting really awesome stuff on this blog instead of working on an e-book that's not going to be released for a while, okay? Great. Now, what I meant to write about - the event! Any and all reading this should attend, either in person or digitally. And for those of you who aren't sure that this is something that's relevant or something the average joe would be interested in, here's a little something for you.

I work as a secretary for the Honors program here at BYU. As I was working at my desk, I couldn't help but here an conversation that took place between one of the directors and a graduate student. He was trying to convince her about how the way english and writing are taught in schools now doesn't help people for the real world. Students need to learn to create early and often, releasing and getting social feedback. He also talked about how the Ivory Tower of academia needed to be more accessible to the average person, and remove copyright restrictions that limited who could view and use research. He went on and on, basically covering every single digital concept we talked about in class. As he was walking out, I did the obvious thing, and invited him to the event (although honestly, he probably could've presented as passionate about it as he is). I showed him the event website, and he seemed really excited, and said he'd tell all his friends.

So what I'm saying is that there are people out there who *actually* care about openness. Not just computer science majors, or people taking classes on openness, but real people- like English grad students. Okay, so maybe he's not a normal person per-se, but he's just one example of the few people I've bumped into this week who have expressed interest in openness. It's an important topic, folks! It affects people, and it has the potential to shape their futures! So, let's invite them all to this even and connect, collaborate, and create.

April 11, 7-8:30
Be there or be square!

Really, really open music: not actually that great?

I'm sure everyone who's looked into 'open music' for more than five minutes has found this, or at least something similar. There's quite a few open labels online that release albums royalty free, but jamendo seems to be one of the larger ones. According to their site, they have "over 346, 353 free music tracks!"

While that certainly doesn't seem like much compared to the iTunes store, or even my own music library for that matter, it represents a growing phenomena in the music industry where artists release their albums for free. A growing number of groups, such as the Indelicates, release their albums digitally, allowing buyers to set their own price ($0.00 being a legitimate choice) in hopes that fans will like them enough to support them, and even people who don't like it will be able to spread their music. Another group named, ironically enough, Bomb the Music Industry, does the same, but even goes so far as to open up their concerts, and will even allow anyone who's practiced the band's songs to some level of proficiency  up on stage to play with them. 

 

Unfortunately, it sounds awful. And looking through jamendo's library, the pickings there are pretty slim as well. It has been my experience so far that quality open source songs are few and far between.  Looking through copyright free images has yielded about the same results. As far as open culture goes, I have yet to see any real, genuine success outside of professionals that establish themselves commercially and then turn open. Is it really possible to establish something openly from the very beginning? I haven't found any examples yet, but if anyone is able to find them, I'd be very curious to see how they manage to stave off initial costs. I posted about Lastwear, an opensource clothing company. They recieved their funds through kickstarter, basically by asking for donations. They got their money, but according to their website and the financial information they've posted, it still hasn't been enough and they're close to going under. So while openness might be great in industry and the scientific world, I don't see it turning out any Mozarts in the near future. 

It's a good idea guys, but you're not quite there. Maybe if you had an incentive to practice, like... making money?

Open Sources

       My research started out with a Google search. I’m not afraid to admit it, since I’m sure most of yours did as well. After getting past the initial flood of news articles, I looked into post and links other people in the class had shared. I also looked up some ‘internet celebrities’ such as Randall Munroe, Cory Doctorow, and Richard Stallman, to see who they’d been talking with and about. But again, honestly my research process was more stumbling around a few reputable sources and checking out anything and everything that linked to them. I found some interesting sources that way, but the amount of noise in the results is a big damper on the research.

                As to how these sources relate to our claim, most of them are straight forward. Predictions of the digital future are numerous and varied, but these sources make educated arguments about how openness has developed, the way it has shaped society, and how it may develop in the future based on past examples. Our argument should make use of the evidence they present, and make note of their proposals, though we obviously won’t agree with them all.

• Hasan, Ragib. (History of Linux, https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/)
Provides an interesting and entertaining look into the early development of Linux and the open source movement. It’s a good introduction into the open-source movement and there’s some good insight into how an open movement grows over time. [I looked for a few run-throughs of early Linux history, and this is one of the better ones.]
• Doctorow, Cory (Creativity versus Copyright) As an openness activist, Doctorow lays some very good arguments for openness, while at the same time establishing some good boundaries to it. I plan to make use of both the pros and cons he lists in this article. [I found his essays while investigating his other works.]
• Boyle, James. The Public Domain, 2008 Yale University Press– the concept of the public domain is one of the first legal recognitions of openness, and its development over time is an important part of our argument in how openness will shape society. Examples used here about how the public domain has been used positively and negatively can be used to help establish openness guidelines. [I looked at the list of books used in class that I hadn’t read, and this one looked promising.]
• Micheal Tiemann- He’s a board member for the Open Source Initiative, GNOME foundation, and Open Source America. His work with the OSI works to clarify what precisely defines open-source and openness. Also, his blog is a good source of ideas and new implementations of openness in today’s society.
•  Cory Doctorow
– in his own words (from his blog) “Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger -- the co-editor of Boing Boing (boingboing.net) and the author of Tor Teens/HarperCollins UK novels like FOR THE WIN and the bestselling LITTLE BROTHER. He is the former European director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. Born in Toronto, Canada, he now lives in London.” He’s very active in the creative commons movement, and looks a lot into the social and political implications of openness. Some of his articles would be good sources for the discussion of when Openness is and is not appropriate.
• Randall Munroe (xkcd.com) – A NASA roboticist, comic artist, and internet celebrity. He isn’t exactly a leading figure per se in any particular field of openness, but he is definitely an influence among the ‘internet culture’ that makes up the active user-base of most open source movements, and his work has been mentioned in discussion among most, if not all open communities. I also went to school with his brother, so I’m still holding out that he’ll respond in time for the final product.

A China on Your Desktop

Imagine if instead of open information, the whole world was open. Imagine if, instead of downloading software and articles off the internet, you could downloaded that plastic piece that keeps breaking on your laptop. You clicked a button and it materialized in your hand. If you needed a hammer, you found one online, zapped it onto your desk, and went off to start using it. This isn't Star Trek- according to some, this is the near future.

http://singularityhub.com/2009/04/09/3d-printing-and-self-replicating-machines-in-your-living-room-seriously/

Reprap is just one example of the 3D printing movement. The goal is to create a device that can take a 3d object, made in any number of modeling programs (some of which are open source!) and convert it into a physical object. The applications of this kind of machine are endless (and really cool looking), but one of the most significant ones is the printing of the machine itself - self replication.

Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did....Just as nobody could have predicted the impact of the steam engine in 1750—or theprinting press in 1450, or thetransistor in 1950—it is impossible to foresee the long-term impact of 3D printing. But the technology is coming, and it is likely to disrupt every field it touches.  - The Economist(2011)

As amazing of an idea this is, there is another darker side to the proposed 'revolution'. Randall Monroe sums it up right here. Basically, can the common man be trusted with ownership of production? The push for openness of information has been welcomed with open arms, and the effects have been positive for the most part. However, there has yet to be any manifestations of openness in the physical world that compare to that in the digital. This could be due to the less than stellar record for attempts at 'openness of production', i.e. communism.

Karl Marx's argument for a common possession of means of production was that the 'bourgeoisie', or those who had control of production, were promoted by greed to exploit people's labor for profit. However, attempts at this model have usually resulted in dictators such as Mao and Stalin. Various smaller organizations throughout history have attempted collective ownerships, such as Shakers in early America, Essine Jews in ancient Israel, Incas, and even the LDS church practiced it with the law of consecration for a short time. However, all examples have either been in isolated communities or short-lived failures. All of the early 19th century experiments in Utopian communities had the same results. What I'm getting at is perhaps entirely open production is detrimental to society. If every blog on the internet was converted into a physical object, how many worthless pieces of plastic would there be? Although openness can generate many great ideas and encourage their proliferation, it comes at the cost of numberless amounts of useless user-generated rubbish. Perhaps society simply isn't ready for a truly open means of production. This goes to show how important the need for control is in this wave of openness. I for one don't want to open my mailbox to find tons of plastic figurines showing me how I can 'flatten my belly with these 3 simple tricks!'

Weaponized Media

    You've all seen the Kony video by now, I'm sure. You've also heard all the arguments for and against it, so I'll leave decision to praise or criticize up to you. You're a smart person, you can do your own research, and I'd highly encourage that you do, because as soon as you watched that video, read that article, or checked all your friends' updates on facebook/twitter, you became part of an 'experiment'. It might do us all a bit of good to step back and look at what exactly this experiment is before we start jumping on any trains, be they for or against the cause.

What we have here is a cohesive and well aimed movement to draw attention to a cause; invisible children. But what's that you say? the facts are distorted? IC is a scam? Kony isn't the real bad-guy? Doesn't matter. The video could've been about refugees instead of kids, or animal cruelty, or even bird-food shortages in Central Park. What I mean is that the content of the video wasn't as important as the the presentation of it all.

In an interview with Jedediah Jenkins, one of the creators of the film, he says:

"...the reality is we would work so hard, and make all these videos, and pour so much effort into them, and they would get 3,000 views. But then a video with a cat flushing a toilet gets 40 million views. That left us going, "What are we doing wrong?" .... our goal was to make a movie you could watch online, that’s entertaining, and that tells the story in a digestible way. And we had no idea how hungry the global audience was for that. "

The cause never changed in all the years they worked on it. What did change is the medium, the nature of video that they put out. They intentionally made it a tear-jerker, the kind of emotive video we all forward to our friends and post on our blogs. They spent time and money designing it to be viral. However, there are plenty of videos that get millions more views and illicit no response. The important thing they did was to accompany this with a specific hook to take people's clicks and likes, and turn them into a political and physical force. They pointed people at their representatives, and made it possible to send a message with the click of a button, be it liking their facebook page or sending an email. They stream-lined donation, made a kit  for people who did, and did their best to make the kit viral with the "cover the night" event. They made taking action in the cause as easy and fashionable as possible, and it worked. Whether or not you looked into the facts and decided to support or decry them for frauds, you are participating in exactly the discussion they wanted you to. Every mention of the campaign makes it more of a success, because the nature of  click-activism is that as long as it's been discussed, good or bad, that discussion keeps it at the top of the web and on everybody's newsfeed. The Kony campaign is a prime example of how well designed media can turn the zeitgeist into a tool. It's been a success so far, and I expect to see it reduplicated in the near future, for everything from political campaigns to marketing. Politicians and the like already 'link in' to twitter, facebook, tumblr, you name it. However, this kind of mass promotion and media designed to be viral is going to become a trend. The future of advertising is here, and it is us- or at least our status updates.

Open Source Reality

I don't know about you guys, but I am pretty excited to be assigned to the openness group. If you couldn't tell from my thesis post, I think openness is a grand idea. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea in all cases, but I think it has the potential to bring about some very big changes, albeit over a long period of time. I'd like to expound on an example I shared earlier in a comment: the Arduino manufacturer.

In class we often talk about open-source government and software. Most open source projects are non-profits, or in rare cases for profits (like Mozilla Co.) However, I don't think we've yet discussed how open-source is manifested into the more physical world- like manufacturing for instance. It doesn't really make economic sense to have an open-source manufacturing plan. That doesn't stop Arduino, though.

we release all of the original design files (Eagle CAD) for the Arduino hardware. These files are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, which allows for both personal and commercial derivative works, as long as they credit Arduino and release their designs under the same license.

Basically, anyone can recreate or change the board and sell it, including competing manufacturers (they only have to pay royalties of they use the Arduino name). Arduino is still around, so they're obviously doing something right. One thing that is clear from their model, though, is the one thing they aren't doing- worrying about profits. The purpose of most hardware companies, and arguably every company, is to pull a profit (because if they didn't, they would either cease to exist, or become a charity). However, The purpose of Arduino isn't to maintain its existance. It is to provide a programming board. Because the creators don't care who makes it, they make it open so that anyone can produce the board. If they go out of business, it will be because someone else is manufacturing a similar or superior board in a better way. Thus their product can be perpetuated beyond the original manufacturers, in the same way those dumb facebook memes are perpetuated beyond their original websites. And the best part is, whenever anyone improves the boards design, the improvements are open to be implemented by everyone, including Arduino. So it looks like open-source manufacturing isn't too bad of an idea after all. Maybe we'll see some application of it in other industries in the not-so-distant future. What do you think?

Stuxnet: the *real* modern warfare

So this isn't actually about government conspiracies or video-games or anything. Sorry, I just wrote that to get your attention; looks like it worked! But to whet your appetite for top-secret operations, here's a video explaining what stuxnet is. I don't know about all the facts he quotes, but stuxnet is real, and pretty darn interesting!

Again, I don't want to start a debate on politics, especially since I don't know it well enough to pass off being knowledgeable about it. Rather, I'd like to point out why this is important, because it's exactly what I was talking about with my thesis.

The German emperor Wilhelm II is quoted as saying "“I believe in horses….The automobile is a transient phenomenon”. Some European nations held onto the horse all the way into WWII, but I'm sure we've all heard plenty about disruptive technology. As soon as a new technology comes along, it replaces the old and everybody makes the switch over. But what if the switch changes the entire fabric of society? When tanks and trains replaced horses and wagons, it restructured entire populations. People could live in higher concentrations than ever before, and this changed everything from the way spread to people's health. What stuxnet represents is the next stage in disruptive innovation. Thanks to the digital revolution, everything is connected to the internet, from the phone in your hand to New York city's power grid. Now when a military wants to take down an enemy nuclear power plant, instead of sending in a squad of troops or unmanned drones, they can write a virus. When everything is connected digitally, physical troops and legal boundaries cease to be a factor in waging war. Guns and planes are still important for obvious reasons, just as horses continued to play an important role in communications and transportation after the advent of tanks. Since the new tank of digital age has been released, the civilian counterpart isn't far behind. As everything becomes more connected, physical boundaries will mean less and less. When preparing a presentation with the information group, we started a google+ hangout. Because of this, we were able to get input from Professor Burton, members of the group that weren't there, and someone in Korea (a bit unexpected, but he was nice!) Someone posted a while ago about how people in Korea can do their shopping while waiting for the train. I don't expect Ralphs to go out of business anytime soon, but I do expect more stores to make their goods available outside of the store. Who knows? maybe soon, you'll even get doctor check-ups online instead of in person.

Accesability

If everyone was able to pick up a steam engine for $2, take it home, and do whatever they want with it, we'd have discovered locomotives a lot quicker. Openness and accessibility breed invention. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates started their careers in technology 'hacking' computers in their garages. Opening the source for a program allows people to create their own add-ons and extensions to round out the application with new and intuitive functionality.

In 1876, William Sealy Gosset was working for Guinness Brewing Company when he discovered the t-student distribution in statistics. He asked for permission to publish his findings, but was rejected because Guinness claimed it was 'proprietary knowledge'. He later published his findings anyways under the pseudonym "student", and changed the history of the field of statistics. I don't claim to know an awful lot about the field or the history, but these people do, and they seem to like him well enough:

We might hazard the guess that the generously connective Gosset was, in part the catalyst, but perhaps more generally the communicating medium, of the great statistical surge of the English 1930's.


Many companies have already jumped on the open-source bandwagon, and use the software at all levels of their organizations (although, there are still reservations). However, there is another business model that has come up in class. The best part about it is it's free. Companies have known for a while that they can sell a product by giving it away for free. However, when it comes to technology, there's another spin on the free-product model. Companies like Google and Apple open up their products and give away the tools to develop on them for free, because they want people to generate content for it, and to have people experiment with the technology. I'm curious as to whether or not there are any companies that try this with hardware, or other physical products. I'll keep an eye out for them, but I haven't found any yet. Is it because giving away a physical product doesn't bring in enough user generated results to cover the costs? What do you all think?

Open Theme

Looking back on what I"ve posted for this class, I discovered two things:
1) I don't post often enough.
2) I like playing the devils advocate. I didn't post as much as I would've liked on certain topics, especially on those discussed in class, but there is usually polarized opinions, and I enjoy arguing against both. For example, crime- it's bad right? I would argue it's not! It does a lot of good for society! What about pirating things online, that's got to be illegal- maybe, but it's still good for society! It's the forerunner of an open-information society! It's laying down the framework for an open internet.

If I had to pick a theme of my blog, or more appropriately, the focus of my thoughts over this class, I would say the theme was progression. That might seem like a kind of lame theme, so here's that theme in tweethis form (all 140 characters of it):

As technology progresses it separates itself from physical boundaries, and society will follow.

The physical world is pretty limited. Like the commonly shared apple example, if two people have two apples and trade, they still have 1 apple a piece. However, information is completely different. If two people have two ideas and trade, then each has both. Because of the limited resources, a large portion of society has been fighting over who gets which apples. The first development of written language was to keep track of who gets what in trading. Ever since Pax Romana, there has been near continuous wars over control and resources. Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, the crusades, and the list could go on forever. In "Ghost Map", it actually describes the clear boundaries in society, and the house where Karl Marx developed his ideas on a stateless, classless society. As communication mediums became more common, people became more educated about the state of their societies and people demanded change. People in America read newspapers and books like "The Jungle", and demanded workers rights. People in Japan and China caught wind of the technological advances and wanted to open up their countries to the rest of the world. As people world wide became informational equals, they demanded physical equality as well.

Fastforward to today, with our global economy and a worldwide network of free-flowing information. Today, ideas and media can be reduplicated nearly infinitely, limited only by the ever decreasing price of memory and other hardware. It's my humble opinion that a cultural revolution is slowly transforming our society before our eyes. Thanks to technology's convenience and open projects like Wikipedia and Creative-Commons, the digital world doesn't care where you're from or who you are- it's all content based. As long as you have access to a computer, nobody cares how much you make, who your parents are, or where you went to school. The only thing that matters is what you can put out, be it code, articles, ideas, or media. Movements like Uncollege.org, 3D-Printers, and Freeware push to create an open society, and technology is the medium through which it will be born.

So that's a short summary of how I feel about all this technology stuff! To sum it all up for those who skimmed to the bottom: Technology allows people to break out of geographical, economic, and class boundaries. This will change the structure of society, and who knows? Maybe we'll even have open source cars someday.

Smartphones and the Digital Divide

So, first off, sorry for the lack of an actual discussion on the digital divide in class Thursday. There was a nice little plan laid out, but we ran out of time. Here's what was supposed to happen:

-Before class, ask everyone with a smartphone to respond to a post.
-at the beginning of class, put everyone who responded in a circle, and share with them the link to the text poll, and the question to discuss, which was "How does connectivity affect you?".
-Then, present on the digital divide, and start the discussion.

Those with smart-phones, or the 'digital bourgeoisie', would then discuss how connectivity affects them, while the rest of the class sits in silence, and does not even get to know what the question is.

So that was the plan! I'll admit, it might have been a bit jerk-ish, but I felt it would drive home the point about the digital divide. The internet is a giant forum for sharing information, connecting with others, and discussing the problems of today. However, not everyone has access to it, so they are prevented not only from participating in the discussion, but also from learning what the discussion is. Granted, there are other non-digital media out there (such as newspaper, books, television), but since you and anyone in the world can read this seconds after I've posted it on my personal blog, which cost nothing to make, I think we can all agree that the digital experience is much different.

But so what if there are people that don't get to read the news until they get it in print or on TV? Does it actually make that big of a difference? I'd argue that it does, but that's not the argument I plan on making here. Instead, let's all remember that all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles! So does not owning a smart-phone make you the working-class proletariat? I'd hesitate to take it that far, but I would say you're on a different social class. While there are certainly other, probably more significant differences out there (wealth, education), but a difference in knowledge can have a very real social impact. 

Since the industrial revolution, there has been a difference between the factory owners and workers, the CEOs and the office workers. In our new digital age, a whole culture has evolved around technology and connectivity, creating a new 'social class' of the digitally civilized. However, unlike previous instances of the bourgeoisie/proletariat divide, this one has just as much to do with choice as with material possessions. There are plenty of people, in this class even, who have the mans to purchase a smart phone, but choose not to. We could all have used Google+ before this class, but most of us didn't. That is to say, inside of the technological elite, there is another layer of divide between those who are 'connected' and those who are not. A good example is the non-voting we've discussed in class: those who have access to the latest news in politics, getting updates on their smart-phones and checking blogs on their favorite political sites are much more likely to vote than someone who owns a lap-top, but only uses it to check email and download new casserole recipes, and even moreso compared to someone who doesn't own any computer at all. So, what do you think about the digital divide? Does it exist in your social circles? Does connectivity empower or segregate you?

If you give a business a cookie...

As someone who tries to stay connected in the crazy world of technology, I give away an awful lot of information. Facebook knows everything about me, basically, and there's at least a thousand sites out there that know my email, birthday, full name, and my first pet. Okay, that's an overstatement. Most of that information is stored in some encrypted database on their servers, but let's be honest: we hand out a lot of information, both online and off. I don't mind telling Pandora what kind of music I like, or Goodreads.com what kinds of books I like, because their service is based on taking that information and providing more of what I would probably like. Google reading my searches and emails to give me relevant ads is pushing it a little, but I can live with that. However, when companies take your information without you knowing about it, let alone consenting to it, that's pushing the line a bit. It's an everyday occurrence, though. Data-mining has become one of the mainstays of the internet industry, providing income to Google, Yahoo, and any website that's free- which, it turns out, isn't free. They just charge you your personal information instead of your money.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058205-1,00.html

So this article covers data-mining in our society better than I could ever hope to; I highly recommend reading it through. Instead of trying to top that, I'll pose a question: how has technology changed societies perception of privacy? For most people, (those who shop online, use MVP cards at grocery stores, or use google) convenience and savings are worth more than privacy. For me, personally, that's a really scary concept. I see it as the slippery slope to a controlled consumerist state with no privacy, but that's probably just my inner conspiracy-theorist talking. But seriously, when did privacy suddenly get downgraded? In 1928, Justice Louis Brandeis went so far as to claim that the right to privacy was "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

While his was a complaint against invasion of privacy by the government, businesses have become the main culprit in todays society. Here, Target tracked a young woman's purchases by assigning an ID number to her credit card, then found she was pregnant by analyzing her purchasing habits.She even got some coupons for maternity clothes in the mail. While it certainly is convenient, is it right? Should companies be allowed to extract so much information from people? While it is true that we consent in a form by using credit cards and shopping at Target, these habits are becoming such an essential part of society that it's near impossible to be an active participant of society without them. Will privacy become a thing of the past for the 'digitally civilized'? I'd hate to think so, but it seems to me that as connectivity increases, the right to privacy will become a thing of the past, and our personal information will be just another commodity to be traded on the free market. 

Forced Open Source

For those of you not up to date on the latest nerd news, there was a pretty big throw down this week between Symantec, and a hacker claiming to be Anonymous (here's one of many articles). So while Anonymous has caught my attention this semester, and I'll admit to even finding some of their hijinks amusing (dare I say I approve?), this one is a pretty cut-and-dry crime. Leaking the source code to an antivirus is somewhere on the same level as giving away free copies of your house-key.  I don't approve of crime, be it in the real world or digital, but I'd like to play the devils advocate here for a minute and argue for the other team. Perhaps there is still some good here?

I'm still intrigued by the idea of organic reactions in Ghost Map, and there's another concept linked closely - for those of you in the social sciences, I believe it's called structural functionalism. It's a theory that states all forces in society serve a purpose - including crime. While it certainly stinks for anyone who might use Symantec software, and even more so for people who *make* Symantec software, this even will lead to two things: 1) A new and improved version of Symantec, and 2) a new and improved version of many other anti-virus companies who can build off of Symantec's mistake. Again, I'm not condoning the actions of an illegal hacker group, but rather drawing attention to some perhaps overlooked concepts, which might even help in focusing our final project.

The point I'm trying to make is that all bad things aren't bad entirely. Structural-functionalism proposes that crime serves the purpose of 'sharpening' society and unifying communities, and at the same time marking those who do not function well in society as criminals. Online crime ensures that people secure their information flows, and makes examples of those who don't - a kind of social Darwinism. If no one ever had to worry about their computer being hacked, would we have developed the kind of privilege settings required for a functioning network? Perhaps hackers are part of the reason we have learned to control our information flow, and to check our sources on the internet.

Now for the application - so what? You just read a whole long article, and you want something you can talk about in class to show for it. Here's something for you - perhaps not all problems should be solved. Maybe low voter turn out is a good thing - it prevents the uninformed from electing some one who's not qualified. If an industry is disappearing, then maybe it's about time it made way for a new one. And if hackers are breaking into company networks and stealing source code, then good news! Other companies will be better off for it.

The Internet before Computers

In·ter·net

/ˈintərˌnet/  A global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols.

We all think of the internet as a revolutionary construction of this past century, but if you take a step back, you'll find that it's not that new of an idea. While computers haven't been around that long, if you remove the word 'computers' from the above definition, you'll find examples throughout history of vast networks passing enormous amounts of information, and some that might even rival the social clout of Facebook.
    The very first examples of written language were in Mesopotamia, namely for trade and passing information between tribes, creating an network of commerce. Later, as conquerors expanded the scope of commerce beyond single continents, the need for more standardized communication networks became necessary. China developed bank notes during the Tang Dynasty, 7th century, to allow for trading in greater bulk without having to carry giant containers of coins or gold. The Knights Templar, apart from creating rumors and myths for movies like National Treasure, became a giant financial network for most of the wealth in Europe at its peak. A noble could turn property over to the order in Britain for a note, travel across the continent to Italy, and have that same note be recognized. So what is that? A network providing a  standardized means of communication across long distances and between different groups? Sounds familiar....
    Aside from financial networks, there were plenty of others as well. One of my favorites was that created by Joseph Fouche, intelligence director for Napoleon. It was said of his informant network "...that three men could not meet and talk indiscreetly about public affairs without the Minister of Police being informed about it the following day." Intelligence networks existed for most every army in the world. Napoleon also used a precursor to the telegram, the Semaphore. Later, the telegraph became an essential tool of the British Empire, connecting Britain to India, allowing communication all across the empire. 

     So they weren't exactly e-mail and twitter, but aside from speed, what was the main difference? They were essentially the same - a telegraph sent from England printed in the local papers had about the same effect as an online article shared on Google+, didn't it? I feel what makes our 21st century internet so revolutionary is its openness. At first, only nobles and politicians used the communication networks for national and business matters. Later, as technology advanced and made communication cheaper, more people were able to make use of the established networks, like sending telegrams or posting classifieds in newspapers. Computers didn't create the idea of global information networks, but they did change the way they worked. Only now, though, in the age of lap-tops and facebook, has communication become so cheap that something as worthless as meme pictures can be shared with the numberless masses. While increased usage has allowed for wider spread of information, it comes at the risk of a lowered standard of content. So in a way, perhaps the internet was better before computers? I don't think anyone ever had the problem of getting spam telegraphs.

The shoulders of Giants

Unfortunately, I have not been keeping up with my blog as I should have. This week, instead of posting like I needed to, I was doing homework for my computer science class. I'm taking CS 124, and in it, we learn about computers from the ground up, from wires and batteries to programming in C. I must admit I still don't quite understand it all (though I passed off the assignment, thank goodness) because let's face it - computers are tough. That's why we pay the Geeksquad or bribe our roommates to fix them for us. Nobody wants to spend the time and effort learning about their processor's addressing mode or their windows registry just so they can get back to uploading pictures or emailing friends. We rely on the tech-savvy to keep our digital world up and running. Every time you make a blog post, click a link, or even turn on your computer, you’re taking advantage of engineering feats that the best and the brightest took years, if not decades, to make. However, once an idea is hatched, than it can be shared freely, right (after paying copyright fees, of course). That’s why computers and software are so readily available in our world today. But after reading David’s posts (definitely worth reading if you haven’t yet), that thought of standing on giants shoulders was put in a new light. He mentioned how before there were professional scientists, there were hobbyists, funded by the rich or by themselves.

Another excuse I had this week for not blogging was a presentation for my Chinese class. I researched poverty and the wealth gap in China. Rural poverty in china is astounding, but what I’d like to focus on here is the urban poor, namely, the people who made the computer you’re staring at right now. Computers have leaked their way into almost every facet of society, and the vast majority of American households have more than one. Prices have remained low enough for the middle class to keep up to date with the latest in hardware, and for technology companies to experiment with releasing free software and new business models. While there is a large discussion about open-software and digital freedom, what about the base on which the software is founded? What about open-manufacturing?

Human-rights in Asia is a topic for its own blog post, and I don’t plan to tackle it here. Instead, I am hoping to spur a little more investigation into the cost of our digital world. While abstraction makes it possible for us to work excel spreadsheets without having to program, and access the world’s information without having to learn anything more than how to operate a browser, we need to dig deeper if we hope to understand and change the way the digital world works. Even if an operating system is released for free, there’s a cost involved that goes deeper than the time of those involved. Software, as powerful and intuitive as it is, is tied to hardware, and the digital world, as wonderful as it is, is tied to the real world. So remember, that new iPhone app that is going to change the world costs something, even if it’s free. 

The Motor of the Internet

        Bryan and Jase made some good posts this past week, and whether they knew it or not, made a connection that unearthed what might be one of the most prevelent forces of our time. Jase posted about the hacker group anonymous. For those of you who haven't been on the internet very long, this article should make a good enough introduction. Suffice it to say, they're basically the definition of a 'troll' - people who traverse the internet with the sole purpose of  getting a good laugh at others expense. However, they're not just your average bunch of troublesome nerds- despite being leaderless and disorganized, the 'group' has played a vital role in attacks on the Church of Scientology, the FBI, Sony, MasterCard, and even manifested quite a bit with the Occupy movement. They have something called the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC), which is a DDOS network loosely constructed that lets them crash websites and networks around the world. So what do these 4chan troublemakers have to do with Betty White and sprezzatura? They use the same weapon. Not that Betty White has an ion cannon in her basement, but Anonymous' greatest weapon isn't its computers - it's what they give as their motivation for all their attacks; they do everything 'for the LOLZ".

     As ridiculous as it is to type that acronym in a serious sentence, it's the same concept as sprezzatura, sarcasm, or any other humor used to mask and defend one's self. Anonymous has no defined leadership, and no means of enforcing any leadership claims that are made. In the 'official' decleration of war, it says "... for the good of mankind, and for our own enjoyment, we shall proceed to expel you from the internet and dismantle the church of Scientology in its present form." Thus we see, rather than a leader or set of ideals, the driving force behind Anonymous, behind a group that cost hundreds of organizations millions of dollars, is laughs.

       While this may seem like a new thing to some, making a mockery of held beliefs and societal standards just for laughs, as well as rejection of order and reason are not new ideas. In the later half of the 20th century, new philosophies of arose from the Dada movement to Existentialism. Authors like Ayn Rand, Sarte, and others rejected everything that pointed to world with any meaning or purpose and instead, embraced a godless world with moral relativism (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?). Faced with this, as Sisyphus is faced with his boulder in Camus' example, one needed to make one's own pleasure from the struggle of life. Perhaps Anonymous is merely the next phase of existentialism? And not just Anonymous, but everyone that ever became famous (or infamous) on the internet - for the most part, the sole reason for their success (or failure) was because people found it funny. Given the lack of strict control on the internet, there is sometimes a wild-wild-west feel to it. So like the existentialists, and like Anonymous, when order is gone, we rely on humor, or whatever our basest appeal is at the moment. The leading force behind the internet is not the government, the media, or even facebook. It's the zeitgeist that drives millions of people around the world to attack or defend whatever is popular or funny en masse. There were quite a few posts for and against SOPA that show just how the zeitgeist works. Did most people actually care about DNS regulation and piracy? No, but it was 'cool', so they emailed their senators. We all recognized that the internet could be a tool for something great, like SETI or wikipedia, but we also recognize that it's main use isn't those things - its for looking at pictures of cats with funny captions. That is, until someone decides that it would be funnier to take that picture and replace your profile picture on facebook with it...

       So next time you get frustrated for someone hacking your MySpace or Twitter, remember that's it's nothing personal, because the real people to blame are the post-modernists from the 1950s. The internet is just a reflection of what really drives and interests us, and the they're are just doing it for kicks and giggles. Why so serious?

Henry Darger: If only he had a laptop

     I don't know about you all, but I had never heard of Henry Darger until I stumbled upon him during a foray into artists on Wikipedia. This is to be expected, as he was a hermit his whole life, who could count his friends on one hand. However, after his death a series of fifteen full-length novels and hundreds of paintings were found inside his house. Today, his work has received praise from various  institutions, mostly for his artwork rather than writing. Unfortunately he never heard a word of it. While there are countless artists that go without fame during their lifetime, Henry is an extreme case where very few, if anybody, even knew he existed (he stayed home when not working as a custodian).
     I find it interesting that the class I am in now as a college student, has the ability to publish our thoughts and comments to the world, and even publish a book online with little or no effort, and certainly no requirement of skill or talent. Thanks technology, anyone can become an internet star (whether they want to or not), and be seen and heard by thousands, if not millions around the globe. How many Henry Dargers are out there, with talents and ideas unpublished simply because they had no outlet? I personally see the internet as an great tool for allowing people to share and specialize in their interests - you really like socks? There's a whole community out there for you. On the internet, being a niche artist is more than possible (like this cheese artist, for example). So, go out there and post, folks! Take whatever your passionate about, throw it out there, and you'll be the better off for it- there's an audience for everything now - even for Nicholas Cage freaks. And who knows? Maybe you'll even live long enough to see your work become famous. More than we can say for ol' Henry.

Crowdsourcing and Crime

Last semester a friend and I did a little experimentation with crowdsourcing, without actually realizing it. We took some sidewalk chalk to the wall at the ramp south of campus. After finishing a little winter-break picture, we left the chalk at the base, with a note that said "help yourself". I came back later, and found it had doubled in size.

What I noticed was the overwhelmingly positive nature of what people had drawn and written. Before we left, someone passing told me "you know that's grafitting, right?". The thing is, he was right! However, if you've ever noticed grafitti in restrooms, on buildings, and in desks, it's almost universally crude at best, and obscene at worst. However, the 'graffiti' I found later added on was overwhelmingly positive. Wikipedia, and other open forums, turn out positive as well in the long run (despite the rabble rousers - we'll get to that in trolling, I believe). When a medium is closed off to the public, that doesn't mean nobody uses it, just the people who have no regard for the law. Take the prohibition, for example - alcohol sales didn't stop, they were taken over by criminals (thus, the prohibition was the 'birth' of organized crime in america) When it's opened up, however, people with something good to have a voice, and I feel that they outnumber those who don't.

Censorship and restrictions on digital formats might affect the volume of information flow, but more evident is how they affect the nature- Peer to Peer file transfer is a great way to spread large files, and has the potential to share vast amounts of information - textbooks, education software, openware. Perhaps due to the stigma on filesharing portrayed by its opponents, though, the overwhelming majority of PtP traffic is in illegally copied material- music, games, and unfortunately, pornography. If we as a culture hope to get the most out of technology, we have to be willing to accept it openly, rather than attempt to restrict it. Let's not have another Prohibition, but instead, an Enlightenment. Happy Blackout day, everone!

Nature of the Beast

Any representation of information has an inherent bias in the medium. Take maps, for example. Taking the earth, and displaying it in a 2D format requires you to make choices in how to display it. Those choices are the bias. I don't really think about this when I look at a map, and unless you're a cartographer, I assume you don't either. But personally, when I saw this map here, I realized just how large a bias I'd had (the other way never really did seem to be 2/3 water).

I see the internet kind of like a new kind of map. We get to recreate the world around us, and share it with everyone, but there's a bias. Through all the arguments about copyright holders and profits, and even the necessity of publishers, let us not forget that the very nature of the electronic medium is to let information flow freely. Something as simple as Ctrl+C is enough to reduplicate the entire life's work of an artist, or all the information of every major war in the past 20 years. While we must define how much information should flow, and how free it should be, it's going against the grain- free, unlimited content is the nature of the beast. The only price we pay for this freedom is that anyone with a laptop can get a little too much coverage- like my friend Vermin Supreme here. But that's something for another post. Vermin 2012!

What do you know about....

the 19th century and information! Good question. Sorry to pull a Clinton here, but that depends very much on your definition of 'know'. I've studied the 1800s enough to be familiar enough with who did what when, but how much is actually contained inside of my head? Very little. Rarely do I memorize information that can be pulled up in seconds, and when I do it usually stays there only as long as the test. I guess that in itself is a kind of commentary about information, which is the other half of my assignment. So, before I go to refresh myself on the notes of previous history classes, here is what information actually resides in my head.

American history I know pretty well; War of 1812, Louisiana Purchase, civil war, gilded age, all that good stuff. My grasp on the world stage of that century is a little shakier. I haven't taken a history class in over three years. What I do recall is the collapse of empires and the rise of technology. Asia began to open up, Edison and Tesla make important steps in the field of electricity, and science in general expands greatly. Darwin shakes up things with his 'Origin of species', and slavery starts to be abolished. Basically, the 19th century breaks down the walls established in the medieval world and sets the stage for technology and globalization, which was realized later in the 20th century.

As for information, it's kind of a self-referential loop to know something about information, isn't it? I very much like the three concepts outlined in class: consume, create, and connect. I feel that those are very pertinent to information in our world today. The internet and technology has created a veritable flood of information that drowns quite a number of people. Despite the ready availability, vast populations still reside in ignorance of much of the advances in science, world politics, and basically all the advantages that technology affords us. The ability to filter information and getting the right knowledge to the right people is, I feel, one of the greatest tasks of this digital age. No one person or organization can sit atop the internet and try to funnel everything to the right place, so the answer lies more in the direction of getting the masses to guide themselves, by connecting themselves to the right people, and the right people to themselves. Like the catch-phrase from class, 50 brains are better than 1, even if the 1 has a PhD. So what do I actually know about information? I know that it's important, and I would like to know more about it. That's about all I've got.

How Digitally Civilized am I?

Organisms exist and thrive so long as they either adapt to the environment around them, or adapt the environment to them. In the beginning, man made computers to solve his problems, or adapted them to suit himself. Now, computers and electronics have infiltrated every aspect of life, and it is we who must adapt to the computers around us. I personally have only a rudimentary knowledge of programming, networking, and the ins-and-outs of the machine. However, I feel more secure in my knowledge of how to survive in a digital world, and I feel that is what 'digitally civilized' means. Having grown up using computers to do homework, connect with friends, and research, I feel comfortable accepting technology as a part of my life and using it in an informed, efficient fashion. That's not to say I'm good at it, though. I hope that this class will significantly increase my understanding of how this digital world works, and how I can better 'civilize' myself to thrive in our electronic environment.

Introduction

Name: Jared Halpin

Age: 22

I was born and raised in Virginia, and love the east coast. I served a mission in Arcadia, CA, speaking mandarin chinese. I enjoy enjoying things, and I generally switch hobbies every couple of weeks. As of late, I am trying to learn french and the ukulele. My longer running hobbies are the harmonica, reading, hanging out, and learning. I eat dark chocolate like a junkie shoots speed, and the results are about the same. I think I am a sophmore, but am not sure. I am also unsure about my major. It will be either Chinese, Computer Science, or I will drop out and live in the mountains.