Our Questions on Cards

Does the Internet produce a single, homogeneous time?

How does Terranova use the idea of duration to express the dynamic feature of the Internet?

Terranova Dicussion Questions

1. Terranova discusses how the internet and networks are not physically tangible. On page 40, she writes, "The debate has recently come to overlap with an earlier perspective that considered computer networks mainly as expressions of dematerialization and disembodiment." How does that make you feel when you PAY for internet software and music and invest in a world that really doesn't exist? How does this concept fit into the idea of Capitalism?

2. On page 40, Terranova writes, "The layered communication system modeled of the nation-state has witnessed the mutation with the rise of global, real-time communication networks." If change in communication means change in the way the world is segmented (such as the railroad's result in the nation), do you agree that the Internet is creating what Hardt and Negri call Empire?

*Thesis of Empire: In general, the book theorizes an ongoing transition from a "modern" phenomenon of imperialism, centered around individual nations, to a postmodern construct created by ruling powers which the authors call Empire (the capital letter is distinguishing), with different forms of warfare.

Jeopardy! vs Watson - Part 1: Watson holds his own

Well the results are in after Watson took on the greatest human Jeopardy! champions of all time in a first-ever computer versus human edition of the game.

At the end of night 1 of play, here are the results:
Ken Jennings: $2,000
Watson: $5,000
Brad Rudder: $5,000

That's right. One human is tied with the computer, with the other human trailing.

Watson was very impressive, but certainly not perfect after the first game. In one example of a glitch, Ken Jennings buzzed in with an incorrect answer and Watson buzzed in to get it correct. The computer ended up giving the exact same wrong answer as Jennings. Watson can not benefit from others' wrong answers, which impedes any possible process of elimination.

The computer also had a tough time distinguishing negation. One question asked for the "first non-dairy coffee additive." Watson answered milk. The answer made complete sense without the word "non-" in front of dairy.

The computer also seemed to have a tough time making progress in some pop culture categories. One question that boasted a correct answer of "Voldemort" from Harry Potter stumped Watson entirely.

The show also included details in how Watson was created and interviews with the experts who created him. They discussed the greatest challenge in being similar words and word association. One example, Watson has a hard time distinguishing the difference between "John McCain running for president" and "an athlete running a race." I guess context would be the issue at point here.

Watson continues on Jeopardy! tomorrow night in part 2 of the tournament.

Jeopardy! Champs vs. Watson

Is Skynet possible? Could there be the existence of a computer smarter than its human creator? Well, Jeopardy! and IBM teamed up to see if a computer could compete with its greatest champions of all time.

Over the past several months, IBM researchers have created a vast computer that they lovingly named "Watson." Over several months of testing the machine in Jeopardy! style games, the machine was also tweaked as to work out as many bugs as possible.

But starting tonight, Watson will make his national television debut on Jeopardy! and take on Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. We all know Jennings as the man who holds the 74-game win streak on the show and seemed almost unbeatable. He took home more that $2 million. Brad Rutter played in the days when the show limited contestants to a give-game win streak. He later played in multiple Jeopardy! tournaments and actually beat Jennings in the Ultimate Tournament of Champions.

It is important to note that Watson is not connected to the Internet. He does not have an unlimited knowledge base to pull every answer from. Watson is designed to include as much information as possible and can use his own knowledge in the competition, just as every Jeopardy! contestant can.

It will be a three-part series that begins Monday. Let's see how this goes. It'll either be an exciting match or the end of human society as we know it.

What's Your Problem with Twitter?

This is a little bit of side note, but it may frame some of my arguments to come this semester. What's everyone's problem with Twitter? (Who else is on Twitter anyway?)

You've all heard about it. You all have favorite celebrities, politicians, athletes, musicians who tweet. Why do people think it's simply a minute-by-minute post of mundane topics. (I'm eating a Tuna sandwich).
By the way, I hate tuna. I would never post that (or eat that).

Twitter is micro-blogging. It's sharing your thought with the world in 140 characters. It's the best way to share a link or a photo. You can easily share what you find interesting.

I've met more people (that were strangers) on Twitter than I have on Facebook. It's all industry-based. Believe you me, if you are (or want to be) in the news industry, get on Twitter now. Like tonight. Go!

I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on the matter. I'm going to tie in this argument with a lot of the readings.

Clay Shirky's "Law" is Valid

After reading Clay Shirky's Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality, a lot of things began the make sense. In the past, I've heard many examples of what he writes about, but it was useful to see an actual theory (with mathematics to prove it) come forth.

In class, we talked about how Capitalism tends toward monopoly, especially when it comes to new media. Think about it - any giant we know on the Internet is so successful because of its uniqueness and lack of competition. (I guess I should say legitimate competition). These successful ventures also create a niche in their market, and then own that niche.

Let me list a few examples of giants on the web. Please comment and let me know if you can think of a legitimate competitor to any of them. I'm also going to include what their known for, and the market they've taken complete control over.

YouTube (user-submitted videos)
iTunes (legal music downloading)
Google (search engine) - no, Bing doesn't compete well
Facebook (personal social media) - Twitter can't compete directly
Twitter (micro-blogging)
Microsoft Office (word processing, spreadsheets, slide show presentations, work email)

My point is that Shirky's law is completely valid in more than blogging. "Winner takes all." The power law distribution is shifted far to the left. Anything I mentioned above is the left of its respective industry's curve. Plus, if you can think of an almost-competitor (ala Bing), still it's only maybe two competitors when there are/were dozens of attempts out there.

I welcome your comments, especially if you have a good counter to the examples I listed above.

Lanier Questions for Class

1. Is Jaron Lanier being overly analytical in his assertion of how the Inernet influences society?

2. Do you buy into Lanier's argument that the higer class of people may be able to "purchase" longer life spans with the continue advancement of modern medicine?

3. What do you think of Lanier's new Internet payment plan? (Where you pay when you visit, but others pay when they visit your work.)

Reaction to Past and Future History of the Internet

This is certainly one of the best Internet history syntheses that I've ever read. It gives an in-depth look at the Internet's history since it's conception, and even earlier when ideas only resembled what we know as the modern-day Internet.

The part I was most interested in was what the authors offered for the future of the Internet. The authors Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Lawrence G. Roberts, Stephen S. Wolff say:I actually think they miss the mark on what the future is, and what the Internet's involvement will be in that future. They say the Internet is only a result of the computer, which I agree is true. But they say the Internet will only survive if it can keep up with the computer. This is where I disagree. I think for the computer to survive, it has to keep up with the Internet.

The Internet is a creature of the computer, not the traditional networks of the telephone or television industries. It will—indeed it must—continue changing at the speed of the computer industry to remain relevant. It is now changing to provide such new services as real-time transport, supporting, for example, audio and video streams (page 7).

My example is the ever-increasing popularity of mobile and touch devices. Many experts think that within five years, the Internet and websites will be designed for your fingers and not your eyes. I think that these portable devices are creations resulting from the Internet. The Internet provides endless amounts of information and vast knowledge on any topic imaginable. The Internet's information source can't even be depicted with words that I type.

This information, including live information on Twitter or maps and directions on Google Maps, or a phone number search on yellow pages websites have become luxuries the public have fallen in love with on the Internet. That information is now demanded on the go, as portable information. Products such as smart phones and iPads  quench the thirst for the desire of this information on the go.

Without the Internet, and what it offers, computers would have no purpose in being portable. In fact, these devices are poor utilities for word processing or other non-Internet applications. Computers are becoming portable because of the Internet, because of what the Internet has to offer.

The Internet will continue to be demanded in new forms and new mediums, so the computer is the one that need catching up in this race.

TODAY Show in 1994: "What is the Internet Anyway?"

As many of you may know, I was at intern at NBC News over this past summer, and got to spend some time at the TODAY show. I'm also a regular viewer of all NBC programs.

A clip from a TODAY show episode in 1994 has resurfaced this past week and is getting some attention. Basically, the anchors ask viewers to send an email to NBC with their opinions about a story they were doing.

Anchor Bryant Gumbel started the conversation by asking what the "@" symbol meant. They weren't really sure. Then in led to the conversation expanding to Katie Couric and Elizabeth Vargas all trying to explain what the Internet is.

I should point out that Katie Couric, now the anchor of the CBS Evening News, is one of premier journalists on Twitter.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Egypt without Internet

Image American without the Internet. No, I'm serious. Try.

Exactly. It's almost unfathomable. Actually it's hard to imagine any society without the Internet. There isn't a person I know on this campus whose daily routine doesn't involve at least a few moments on the Internet. That includes Facebook, Twitter, email, Google, Google Maps, Blogger, your favorite blog, your daily newspaper, tonight's dinner recipe and so much more.

As of tonight, cell service joins the Internet as a luxury no longer available to Egyptian citizens. The government has taken down the cellular service providers, but it is only rumored to have taken down the Internet service providers. But the changes are likely.

The events in Egypt are slowing appearing to be a revolution in the county known for its Pharaohs and Pyramids. Facebook is being credited as the medium that started this all. Interestingly enough, the "man" behind the Facebook page is unknown. The name belongs to someone killed in 2009, but someone is using his profile to create the unrest now being watched by every country in the world.

Take a look at this article from msnbc.com:

Iran's Green Revolution had a martyr named Neda, a 26-year-old woman gunned down in the streets of Tehran. Tunisia's was Mohamed Bouazizi, an unemployed university graduate who set himself ablaze outside a government building. Egypt's is Khaled Said-because someone has been agitating under the dead man's name.

Said, a young businessman from Alexandria, was reportedly beaten to death by local police this summer-well before rumblings of the country's current unrest. But a Facebook page that bears his name has been one of the driving forces behind the upheaval that started last week.

The anonymous Facebook page administrator who goes by the handle El Shaheeed, meaning martyr, has played a crucial role in organizing the demonstrations, the largest Egypt has seen since the 1970s, that now threaten the country's authoritarian regime.

Yet even Egypt's most active activists have no idea who the anonymous organizer is.