WEEK 9: I was in Paris however.......

I was absent for WEEK 9, having a smashing time in Paris working and playing and blah blah. What I can gather took place using the WIKI concerning week 9  is that there were more interesting discussions. The WIKI states the following:

This week we watched 2 talks by Clay Shirky. The first was in 2005 when tags was a new feature in Flickr, the 2nd talk was from 2009 and in some ways show how quickly things have developed.


The session started with the following statement:

digital environments create the possibility for . . .

everyone was asked to consider what they might add to this statement and we looked at in again after watching each talk.

talk 1: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html

talk 2: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html


Further notes and video: http://zx31.com/elective/ 






These are very interesting and relevant to my post: Who or WHAT is Rupert Murdoch http://positivenonpositive.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-or-what-is-rupert-murdoch.html

These are the responses people in the group came up with concerning the following statement:
digital environments create the possibility for . . .

1) Increasing the impact of the individual voice
2) Mass action
3) Less institutionalised, professionaly driven world moving towards one that is more socially driven.
4) Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.
5) The human archetype.
6) Equality for expression, instability of information access (loss of history).
7) Having a choice to find the right answer.
8) Freedom of expression.
9) Powerful, global group influence.
10) Mass collaboration of individuals.
11) Access to hi-technology (rejection?)
12) Bitesize media consumption. 
13) Less linear and geographic based communication/societies/communities.
14) A more level playing field, producers and consumers are one. 
15) Complete exposure.
16) Diluted power structures.
17) Positive and negative.
18) Ease?
19) Escape from reality?
20) Triangular to circular (reference to 4. Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.)

It is difficult to understand the precise meaning of these points. From what I can make out they all hold validity. The individual is certainly able to make an impact (in support of 1) although not often on their own. Amidst the immense noise that constitutes the internet or perhaps the "the vast ocean of trivial musings and mind-scat wedged in the intellectual sewage pipe" (To quote from Jack Sharp 's interesting commentary again) it is not all that clear how to filter the voice of an individual or how to understand their message or their needs. Referring to the comments about mass collaboration and action (2 and 10) it is these that enable the exposure of a powerful, global group influence (9). Weather the influence is conscious (e.g. planned group action) or not is not always clear however it is not always necessary to clarify this. In the example of the 2009 earthquake in China, the masses of people who were uploading information about it  said something very clear about it because it was such a dramatic event. The nature of the event was violent, unexpected and was effecting real life instantly. It was worth talking about it, it effected so many people who all had the means to share information concerning how it effected them at the same instant that it was happening, be it a photo up load or on twitter etc. Similarly it was something people outside China were very interested in. The so called great firewall of China could not predict such a surge of information, similarly it could not predict an earthquake. This indicates none other than the obvious; that massive Earthquakes, events and dramatic events are a big deal when they happen, of great public interest for the clear fact that they effect people so much and that such things are definitely worth preparing for.

The internet leads us to assume it encourages freedom of expression (8) because with out the additions by people the internet would not be as immense, far reaching or as diverse as it is.  Also, almost anyone and every one can and could start some kind of blog or join some kind of network from which they can  personally express some kind of opinion and/or add some kind of information (no matter how trivial, meaning full or relevant that information might be). Which is the opportunity digital software's use to be made user friendly- and democratic in reference to 4.
Take two examples of 3D software as an example: MAYA- A 'professional' 3D software which is quite expensive, complicated to learn and immensely capable of highly meticulous operations Vs. Google 3D, which is free for everyone, fairly self explanatory and still yields some of the greatness achievable with MAYA but never to such  degrees of accuracy. If I wanted to make something simple, like a ball with in a ball, I may as well use the free-ware.
The internet almost teases  out new technologies from individuals and demands they be democratised. Probably a result of the high volume of internet users and their human desire and nature to respond, e.g with the creation of interactive websites, animations and games etc and how people in-turn create a reply to these ideas.
The digital environment it one that is generative and so simplistic in its most basic form, which in  principal is packet switching. This is an idea as clear as day yet it's applications are potentially infinitely complicated. The fact that this form of communication is based on sharing a circuit is as symbolic as it is practical. 

More tasks for WEEK 7: Murdoch (again)

With reference to the following article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/10/newpaper-internet-paywall-murdoch-live

There is something quite unfortunate about the article. I do not usually purchase newspapers, I tend to read either on those the internet of the ones that come across my path on public transport, in a cafe, library or read those that others have bought (which is a bit cheeky perhaps). These days there is always a lone newspaper flapping about somewhere, waiting to be saved from the rain, recycled or something. And although I enjoy of the physical aesthetics of publication and print I rarely feel the desire to own my own newspaper. The most convincing and moving stories are those devised with a creative, diverse, rousing and/or amusing use of language. Peoples opinions are valid and can take into consideration factual information about an event or idea but can rarely represent it, so I am therefore naturally skeptical about some of the claims newspapers make. 
One daunting thing about Rupert's move is that it might encourage others to charge for information, I agree that 'everything comes at a price' but I disagree that it is helpful to builds barriers around internet access to information, especially when those publications are basically editorials. Its a bit ridiculous I think. An almost cartoon-like, condescending slap in the face from Rupert's lucrative white glove of profit-making. Economic means 'pertaining to the production and use of income' and economical is 'avoiding waste, being careful of resources'. Rupert is taking that concept against how it relates to modern communication and there is little proof that the production of income under his rule is being used in a most effective way, its like he is wiggling down a narrow road. Social enterprise could to be the way to enhance content in the best interest of the public. 

QUESTIONS:

2. Is Rupert Murdock correct in saying that there is not enough advertising revenue to go round, therefore news papers and other news providers will have to charge for their content?

Rupert Murdoch has now declared the free ride over. His titles – the Times, Sunday Times and others – will be obtainable in some shape or form online only through a credit card number. Such charges are already levied for the nether regions of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. But attempts to put mainline news and comment behind a "paywall" have in the past foundered, because of the ease of circumvention and the bruised egos of writers suddenly denied the bulk of their "market".Murdoch's move is comparable to his attack on union-led newspaper costs when he moved his British titles to Wapping in 1985. Then the rest of the industry jeered and rushed to undermine him, while privately praying for him to succeed. When he did they rushed to imitate him. Britain's newspapers enjoyed two decades of prosperity and choice unparalleled in the western world. Now Murdoch wants to transform not costs but revenues. Getting history to repeat itself will not be easy. The bogus idea that "news is free information" has captivated a generation of media managers. It is like saying fruit is free food or wind is free energy. As James Harkin, the author of Cyburbia, wrote in the Guardian last week, newspapers were "seduced by the evangelical gee-whizzery of the electro-hippies". Editorial machismo was boosted by multimillion "unique hits". The truth was that online newspapers were free-sheets for slow learners.

Note: A very big priority to any newspapers is to fill pages, so that they have something to sell- I would like to say a little bit about free news papers. They are free, sustained by advertising revenue but upon reading any free paper it becomes clear that quality had been compromised for its freeness. In my opinion the metro is rubbish, lets be honest and the london evening standard is no better, if I want to read one, Ill pick one up, but I do not take these sources as anything more than editorials and I would much rather read them on line. Online newspapers generally contain diluted versions of their printed counterparts. The sense of obligation to charge for this superficial, edited content, seems a bit odd, perhaps that is all people what to read in which case perhaps the use revenue earned from charging could  change this. But this is mere assumption, and regardless of this the content would only account for a fraction of available information. 

Concerning  "not enough advertising revenue to go round", I assume that this refers to all the small departments that contribute to the production, distribution, proofing, broadcasting, management and creation of news and advertising. Alot of people work in this area and alot of people need to be payed for their work, but this is seems to be within an aging framework. Having sympathised, I am curious to know about the state and location of internet advertising revenue that is made by being online? There is something in Rupert's motive that is not entirely clear to me and the kind of revenue Rupert Murdoch is talking about appears to be from a time who's end is drawing nigh. Short term solutions that profit a minority leads to an influx, imbalance and collapse in the long term.

Rupert charges people to watch sport, news and all sorts of programs on Sky and then collects the advertising revenue. TV is not my concern although mentioning it shows that he believes it is correct to charge for information. Television can not reach as far and it is a one way form of communication, it talks and the viewer sits and listens. This will inevitably be replaced but something more interesting in the future. Its unnecessary to simply start charging for content. Rupert's enterprises already build up huge fractions of economy, by all means I am not an economist, so I could be utterly wrong but I just dont understand how these enterprises are distributing their income when they say there is not enough to go round, this seems inefficient. 

This presentation illustrates a relevant point regarding business. 

Here are two comments from the page under the article: 

bouledesuif

10 Aug 2009, 10:54PM

"I purchase several newspapers everyday, local, national, and international. The online experience so far is superficial for content and also behind the speed with which I can assimilate what I need from a newspaper. When I have been away from an internet connection for a while, I read a book- a -day. Recently, on holiday away from the internet I realised what I was missing ( or not missing) and will continue to be a print junkie thanks."


ThomasReturns
10 Aug 2009, 10:56PM 
"I'm more concerned about the disappearing virtual rain forests! The mountains of virtual sawdust being pulped through the relentless virtual paper mills. And of course, the real power stations polluting the real atmosphere to fire up all those naughty Guardian readers' computers. In any case, the internet is more like a giant reference library than a news-agent. That's why Murdoch will surely fail. But he'll probably bring down the Times in the process."


Rupert's got too much money to fail hasn't he? Maybe some one else will fail, get fired or perhaps this moneywall will only be temporary? 

3. What do you think a Murdock shaped internet would look like in the future if his ideas were successful? 
If Rupert's plans succeed then they could be capable of making the internet less exciting and have inhibiting results on our access to information on a larger scale. Then again for every action there is a reaction and so one certain thing is that the way in which people spread and read content will take new forms that will flitter around Murdoch's plans even though parts of the internet will be segregated, but there will be very little he can do about people overlooking regulations like this. Attempting to apply a hierarchical structure on the internet might have little effect on the overall shape of the internet, it would be like trying to put a triangle shaped block into the circular hole of a jigsaw- it will not fit well. It cant really work, the web's volume is predominantly built by user content so people could (for example) write about content that must be payed for to be seem and there is no rule/law that states this is illegal because everyone is entitled to their view and the internet is a medium through which this can propagate. What it represents is one man's financial empire desperately trying to expand their territory in to a virtual realm in which so many average people can and will contribute what they can to reach out to one another. To deprive them of the freedom to do this would be illegal and an infringement of their basic human rights. Not everyone can make a TV channel or mass produce printed media but all people who can use the internet are capable of spreading information and getting attention. There are greater threats to professional journalists, photographers etc but I don't think they can be shut down so easily, professionals can and will have to devise alternative strategies available to them in order to work and get payed.

WEEK 3: Manovich essay discussion

In response to a discussion about Lev Manovich's essay about

The Practice of Everyday (media) Life:

http://digital-environments.wikispaces.com/Manovich+essay

http://manovich.net/

It would be safe to state that there is a lot one can say about only one aspect of the internet. The compelling nature of the discussion we had in class lies in the impact digital environments has had and is having on our actual lives. The internet having been introduced and shuffled in to public domains throughout the last 25 years. Generations of the future will be born into an era where the internet is in use and used across the world. It has shifted from being an area used for publication to a realm of communication, which is very significant fluctuation. The internet content is increasingly produced by amateurs and this has particular consequence as it is an example that many more people are becoming able to express them selves and communicate in a creative way exploiting digital environments. Every continent is in some way on line, all countries and potentially all people could communicate with each other. Through out the discussion, questions emerged that challenged how this effects our lives. 

Here is lecture expressing a positive assessment of the facilities available to us through internet communication and the implication it can have on physical relationships.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enables_intimacy.html

QUESTIONS:

The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts? One example of misguided internet statistics lies in the fact that users are continually shifting how, when and where they communicate. With the increasing use of mobile technology and mobile internet, some people today can be 'online' all day long with out much inconvenience to their lives or routines. The internet is a fluid field (or pool) of data with users logging in and out all the time, individuals signing up to news letters, remaining logged on to sites for days, having their emails added to databases and so on and so fourth. Manovich's statistics were perhaps completely true at one point in time, 2008 is recent history. The fact that this essay was written in 2008 and the internet has since then already changed dramatically makes it easy to disagree with their certitude. 
One example of change being the increase in users of twitter. As long  users continue using, digital social migrations will continue to spread in to a variety of new and already existing networks. By writing about change there is an indication that such things are inevitable. 
I will use myself as an example: I have not used my my-space account for a long time (over half a year perhaps). Statistically, because I am still registered I am still a user. As Manovich states himself, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’? So perhaps the methods we exploit to gather and analyse data will bustle into methods that integrate the mappability of web 2.0 and real time analysis with be more capable and/or these methods will be more adaptive or general terms that firmly refer or anchor themselves to the particular point time. 
This wedsite on INTERNET STATISTICS:  http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Indicates, 25.6 % of the population of the world having used the internet for September 30, 2009. The deomographic numbers are based on data gathered by the US census beuro. This graph might be out dated in a only a few months. (Please click for greater detail or follow the link to internetworldstats.com to see how they are changing)

Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democraticing of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big business’
Like the many other millions of internet users, I get sent adverts (or spam) to my inbox, with out fail these messages either go to junk, which is seldom checked and always deleted (a method employed by many of the receivers of such information). Its a very interesting time for business because it is so competitive and people are very sensitive to information privacy, making them perhaps doubtful of intrusive spam.  EBAY is one significant development in terms of trading. Users can be sellers and reach potential buyers. The advertising partly takes place in the searching process as all things are categorised. Reputation, nonetheless does NOT cease to be of importance, people like to have a reason to trust whoever they are buying from.
Adverts appear when I access my facebook account but considering all the information in the 'about me' section of my profile is utter nonsense its very unlikely any advertisers with be able to get through to me. The only extent to which advertising on Facebook has directly effected my existence is when I have been made aware of a particular event which has appeared interesting to me and brought to my attention by someone I know. So the element of a person interacting with you still seems to be very important in a successful internet commerce. 
I think the influence of the internet becoming more democratic and is slipping out of the hands of big businesses into the hands of people for example who that are happy to promote ideas or events for free and out of interest. This signifies an interesting view of the future for modern economics (which is quite difficult for me to get my head around.) There will always be a demand for something, and somewhere some one will always be willing to provide a solution to for fill it. So there will always be opportunity for business, but not in a conventional hierarchical way.


Takes for example the success of WIKIPEDIA, which is free and exists as verified user generated content in comparison to to the diminishing ENCATRA, which you had to pay for. Similarly the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE (is also user generated).


There certainly exists a strategy and tactic in the way the internet is shuffled between users when money is involved. The goal to materialise revenue via a far reaching medium- the internet, cheaper that any other kind of media and user friendly, it could potentially develop a massive clientele. Some of whom may without the use of internet may never be made aware of your services and how they can benefit them from the comfort of their own homes. This concept is extremely attractive to business. Even when primarily there is no financial transition being made from a network or database, the database in use will still certainly have value because of its potential commercial value. People often discuss their concerns about social websites such as facebook, twitter, my-space and to a greater extent second life. Concerned because of privacy issues that are embroiled in the fact that their personal information could fabricate revenue for someone. Another concern is the influence that online socialising has on relationships because a broad physical experience of the world (socially, objectively, personally, etc) is much better for us in comparison to residing within one or few realms which do in-fact mute some of the greatest aspects of being human e.g: regardless of how far interactive technologies could go, optically or haptically there is nothing quite as good as a REAL breath of fresh air. Surely? 
Questions concerning the ownership of data on facebook for example yields intrigue from users. The answer is that the data provides revenue for some one or some group of peoples somewhere beyond the internet. Facebook make it impossible for you to completely shut down/erase your profile, you can merely suspend or freeze it. Only recently did this enterprise hold the rights over all things published and posted, and the content on Facebook is only vaguely real considering it goes through such a rigorous selection process by the individual. Leading me to assume that as there is no real, informative meaning to the information on facebook (although it can be at times entertaining) this however is that the trivial pool provided by facebook has value. It seems that it can be a target indicator to advertisers, and the persistence of internet advertising directs me to conclude that SOME revenue is actually made. Facebook can only really indicate some facts concerning peoples lifestyles e.g. photos may reveal what people get up to on the weekend which may (or may not) be of importance to employers when selecting employees.  It is interesting that people are selective of the information they post or allow to be posted about them selves despite this fact. I like to contemplate who they are trying to appeal too if such is the case. It is easy to be skeptical of such networks internet, although it is an unavoidable response to how it has changed our time. Perhaps its only a matter of time before big businesses will have no choice but to adopt the role of the average user to be successful. Like many wolves in sheeps clothing.

What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘ it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s live becomes as common as email’? It is already possible to continually broadcast one's life, regarding you have continual internet connection and some mobile devise with a camera that allows you to do so. The benefit of continual broad casting being as common as email is hard for me to understand, its seems like it would be really boring and unnecessary to watch (unless perhaps for vital research or art? This idea reminds me a bit of the film The Trueman Show). 

Nonetheless, twitter is extremely popular and concerns itself with thousands of one sentence 'broad cast' from thousands of contributers.


THE MAPPABILITY OF WEB 2.0
Here is a link to interesting, paradoxical and rather sad counters comparing internet activity to child death's related to hunger: http://www.wfp.org/1billion

WEEK 2: What is digital (and related topics)

'The interpretation of a binary sequence into something meaningful'

This was the best thing I could think of. Data in the form of a sequence being translated possibly into networks in the form of pictures, sounds, games, messages etc. All things that hold some kind of importance to us.

"Very simply, 'analogue' is used to describe systems which operate using the principle of signals whose characteristic varies in proportion to some other function which they represent. An example is a gramophone record where the depth of the groove varies in exact proportion with the sound pressure level recorded. By contrast, 'digital' systems work on the principle of numerical representations and calculation."

from: http://www.techmind.org/digital/

1) PROBLEM SOLVING: Digital technologies offer a solution to problems relevant to our time and culture that are relative to modern culture and technology. Concerning communications to and from a mass audience across vast distances, the typical problems we might expect involving time and reliability are now easily avoidable if not void in some places with many people being able to access alternative ways to send messages, have real-time conversations and spread news and ideas. Technically, by making it easier for us to communicate, we have solved and important problem. Computers are also able to solve long complex problems and calculations making a cost and time effective alternative providing ourselves with more time to do other things that a computer can only assist in doing e.g. create and discover. 
There are things that computers are very unlikely to achieve, such as creation and abstract thought. But a possible argument against the statement 'COMPUTERS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CREATE' resides in the possibility that there is an underlying order (or law) to everything in the universe (the fabled and ever mysterious 'Theory of Everything'). If there is a universal physical law that we can discover, then in some way events are statistically predictable by some use of probability theory. If the likely-hood of an event can calculated (through probabilities) then it potentially can be done by a computer. No such thing can currently be proven and even though this topic is interesting this is that my priority. 

With regards to probability: Please visit blog entry on LE POMP: Monday, 9 November 2009

Probability and Patterns: Vagueness beyond your standard drunken memory is nothing more than fact

(http://thejenistempire.blogspot.com/2009/11/probability-and-patterns-vagueness_09.html)

2) MAKING LINEAR TASKS EASIER GIVES US TIME TO MAKE, DISCOVER AND PLAY: If I want to find the answer to something I cant remember, the internet provides me with an instant and diverse solutions. This is exciting, because it means such a task can be done by a machine, giving me more time to be creative or interactive in a human way. However the down side lies in the risk that we could neglect our memory and leave things to be learnt in a way that is not thorough or substantial enough. We already rely heavily on the directories and operations of computers and the internet as a substitute for linear memorising and operations. 
This in its self has a good side because it connects us to each other. A practical example of the benefits of using computers is when they are used in scientific research in inaccessible areas such as Mars and Volcanoes- I personally dont see the point in manned space missions, our technology is not advanced enough for this to be cost/time effective and it is currently better suited for collecting and processing data needed to understand more about such physical environments before assessing how realistic, practical or culturally significant it might be to send folk into space (or into volcanoes.) 


*NOTE: Its our responsibility to take care of our memory and the parts of our brain that carry out linear tasks that a computer is more easily capable of processing. Its exists to be used and it makes sense not to let this perish at the expense of practicality- our processing capabilities on the whole (i.e. biologically) are far more advanced than those of any machine.


3) GLOBAL CONNECTION: We are potentially all able to be connected to each through the digital environment and all able to access information for free. This can only be a catalyst in our development and understanding of one another and problem solving.


4) TECHNOLOGY/ CAD/ MEDIA/ ART: There are things we can do with computers that we can not do alone. I mentioned Mars earlier as an example but consider things like laser scanning, satellite imaging, interpreting and/or detecting Infrared signals are a few things amongst many that require computer/digital assistance. 
Computers can also assist in design. CAD (Computer Aided Design) has revolutionized the world of art, design and commerce- with the emergence of digital arts. We can make interactive projected or online animations or games that depend on some kind of network or human action. We use layers, selecting  and mapping tools to assist design using programs such a those made by Adobe. Digital printing has opened up an immense variety of possibilities: Choice of printing methods, printable on many surfaces with many different finishes, production and prototyping is made easier, vector images can be lazer-cut into a variety of surfaces as well as 3D scanning, printing (rapid prototyping) aided by 3D modeling softwares.

The film industry is changing: Not only with the development of technologies in HD (High Definition) and more sophisticated but digital equipment is becoming more accessible, affordable and editing softwares are becoming increasingly user friendly. Digital environments appear to be democratising many creative processes. However many big movies and documentaries are still recorded on film, their is a certain currently irreplaceable aesthetic in the physical imprint of moving images on film that is vital to many creative film makers and directors. Some photographers would agree- but an excellent digital camera to a professional photographer or photo-journalist is indispensable. 

NONETHELESS! 
As a human, it is clear that there will always be an aesthetic and pleasure in all things human made and human done: i.e. communicating with people, walking through a park early in the morning on a sunny day, going to the pub etc. For most people these things are more satisfying in person, possible because sitting in front of a computer screen all day (no matter how interesting its content) is not what we have physically evolved to be able to deal with (yet?). 


There are things a human can do that remain impossible to computers/robots/programs, although through logic it may be possible to imitate these things. Will it ever be possible for computers to be capable of independent abstract thought or ideas that are inconclusive and/or contradictory? In a computer, a contradiction would perhaps result in a crash or a never ending loop, which made physically impossible to do even on an infinite time scale because the physical capacity of a processor. (Which is finite and will 'use itself up'). Computers work by translating numerical calculations that are in a sense like the 'arguments' of logic or PROOF.

Deductive logic can be proven incomplete. This proof was published in 1931 by Gödel; a good reference is Hofstader's Gödel, Escher, Bach. The key being ingrained in 'self-reference'. He proved that all mathematics (unless they are trivially limited) contain statements that are both true and false or neither true nor false. They are infact simply unprovable.

Take for example this 'self referencing' argument: "This statement is false."

"Note that if this statement is true, then it must be false. If the statement if false, then it must be true. So we have a chain of True » False » True » False ...."

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html)

The discussion we had during our meeting on Friday was very interesting, everyone has something to say about WHAT DIGITAL IS. Probably because in London and at Camberwell College of Arts, digital communication networks are very important to how we contact our tutors and each other. For many other people across the world this is the same.

WEEK 1

WEEK 1's introduction to the Digital Environment elective drew my attention to the different between the things we learn about the world that are objective, real and in clear existence just waiting to be understood against the aesthetics humans so infamously create and construct. That we can all say (when speaking of a certain bird that can fly e.g. pigeon) 'That bird can fly' but we will not all say 'that bird is beautiful'- Aesthetics are constructed, and subjective. They depend on your preferences and ideas, which develop depending on upbringing, culture, environment, personal choice and many other derivatives of the nurture and nature of individuals.

Here are four videos from you-tube:
1) Demonstration early digital music technology  

The Fairlight CMI (Computer Musical Instrument) was the first polyphonic digital sampling synthesizer. It was designed in 1979 by the founders of Fairlight, Peter Vogel and Kim Ryrie, and based on a dual-6800 microprocessor computer designed by Tony Furse in Sydney, Australia.^[1][2] It rose to prominence in the early 1980s and competed in the market with the Synclavier from New England Digital. Both instruments would be put through their paces by famed producer Trevor Horn, much to the chagrin of rival Martin Hannett (who left Factory Records after the company refused to subsidize his purchase of a Series IIx model mere months before Horn's production of "Relax" hit the airwaves).

2 ) This is an example of the improvements of the applications of the digital in more recent times (Wii Hacking http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/) by taking advantage of infrared technology using infrared camera in a Wii remote.

3) Johnny Harcastel's video to his 1981 composition 'King Tut'.

4) This is a video from "bionicTechnophobe's" you-tube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bionicTechnophobe#p/u/0/nRNkJnxUa4o  

Using the 8x8 LED matrix of the Meggy Jr as a low resolution video display. The video is captured with the built-in iSight camera of a MacBook Pro using Processing. The image is formatted specially for the Meggy then sent via serial. The refresh rate is certainly acceptable, although there needs to be more error checking with the video sync.

FUTURE SHOCK is documentary from 1972 reaches into some interesting topics. Its based on the book written by the sociologist and futurologist Alvin Toffler in 1970 and contemplates ways in which technology might change the future. It is suggestive of disposable, temporary life styles and distant relationships through computers. These examples are now quite real e.g. fast food, Primark, Ikea, face-book etc. Some people live in knowledge that fast food is bad for you and still eat it. That physical encounters with our environment are currently unrivaled health wise and in terms of experience by anything networking sites can offer and still spend hours on end on them. Some also speculate that primark clothes are inexpensive because they are made in sweatshops and still shop there. Needless to say encouraging wasteful/spoilt behavior through the fact that things are so easily replaced and produced reduces reasons for purchase to something very decadent and pointless. This particular episode seems try expose potential dangers of technology. I cant take it seriously but Id like to read the book.

I have added this video predominantly for aesthetics. I think technology is overwhelming- predominantly a good and wonderful thing. Concerning disposable lifestyle and the current state of the environment this era of wastefulness will inevitably have to end, our environment does after all contains us so we must keep it livable in one way or another.

DIGRESSION: Newton's laws of motion.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Here is a link to and interactive learning website which includes some Java applets on Physics so you can play around with that. Java is a digital environment. http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/index.html