In computing,

Galloway used the conventional road etiquette as an example of how computer protocols work, saying that protocol is a technique for achieving voluntary regulations within a contingent environment. Although the Internet is commonly perceived by critics as chaotic and lacks centralized command, there is actually more protocological control than it may seem. What makes it look like the way it is now is probably TCP/IP, which are the leading protocols for data transmission from one computer to another. I think that torrents are actually a really good example that contributes to the misconception of the Internet today. Probably because it is file transfer system that is very unpopular with copyright authorities, based solely on peer-to-peer network relationships.

Since DNS servers are structured like an inverted tree, a hypothesis was put forth saying that whole countries can be blacked out from the rest of the Internet by just modifying the information contained in the root servers. DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) is a type of attack that floods a website with relentless and useless traffic, causing it to stall or go offline. The incoming traffic originates from potentially hundreds or thousands of sources, making it nearly impossible to stop the attack by simply blocking a few IP address, or even to track down the attacker. Here is an article about the largest DDoS attack that China has ever faced. This further reinforces my stand – that the Internet is a large controllable mesh of networks.

Read Dana’s post on how the protocols undertaken by the Chinese government to restrict the use of Facebook, Twitter, and a number of  other social networking sites.

Today we discussed the notions of technology, technique, and culture.

Technology

By the 1860s, the interpretation of technology shifted from art and craft to the application of a body of knowledge to a specific field, or more easily put, the application of science to production. Over the past few decades, the word ‘technology’ describes overall system of machines and processes.

We are now said to be living in, or around, technology. ‘Technology’ is now an abstract term that suggests an overarching system that we inhibit. I personally agree, fundamentally because the basis of this speculation has stood firm since ancient Greece. The average modern day individual has in some way, owns or uses a form of ‘technology’ daily to keep themselves connected to the world.

Techniques

Technique, simply put, is the ability to accomplish something with the use of skill. Losing our technique would imply the sense that we could not accomplish anything.  But as Potts suggests,

Would this mean that the human workforce will eventually become obsolete?

Simon mentioned that technology is always created by humans, and humans have absolute control over it. Jake says that we, as humans, are also created and ‘programmed’ by education but still have independent control over ourselves and he could see that being inherent in technology. Mardy talks about the notion of nature and technology, where technology has somehow coexisted with nature. For example, back then a stick and a rock could even be considered as technology.

Culture

This brings us to culture. Culture is dynamic because it changes over time. Culture is unpredictable – technology is being used in ways never foreseen by their inventors. So, it is safe to say that culture evolves with technology.

From what I understand from the Barabasi reading, the sentence ‘rich get richer’ points to how a senior node is collectively gathering more links as time passes, compared to a new node that just joined the system, with only a few links. In his terms, real networks are governed by two laws, growth and preferential attachment. In 1999, 3.2 billion dollars were spent by small scale companies on online advertising alone. The reason? Trying to attract more links and hits to their website in lieu of the SuperBowl. As stated in my previous post, distribution of links per site follows a pareto style distribution.

Is it, really? An example here is when I search for ‘bpl (Barclays Premier League) updates’ in a search engine, my obvious choice would be ESPNfc.com because I am familiar with the channel. They more they are linked, the easier they are to find on the Web.

It is obvious people prefer hubs. It is true that it is an unnoticed bias. This is what Barabasi calls preferential attachment. He also goes against the Erdos-Renyi and Watts-Strogatz models where there is no difference between the nodes of a network, saying that “In real networks linking is never random”.

So how does a node become a hub? Growth, seniority, and preferential attachment. Early nodes have more potential to gain links compared to the latecomers. Therefore, when they gain a lot of links they will eventually break off from the pack and form a hub. Using this simple observation, Barabasi was able to conclude in terms network topology, that the Web is indeed following a power law.

Also check out Tim’s post.

This was my sole understanding of subject matter, before I read Six Degrees by Watts, and also Esther’s post.

Right, a ‘degree of separation’ is a measure of social distance between people. I am one degree away from everyone I know, two degrees away from everyone they know, and so on. So, the theory proposes that I am actually just 6 introductions away from Emma Watson, which is sweet because Microsoft proves the theory actually stands. Watts himself also conducted an experiment, called ‘Primetime’. It was a test that pitted real people against each other in a race to see who could connect themselves to a random third individual in a non-conventional way (obviously). 60,000 people participated, and of the hundreds of chains that have been completed, Watts says the average link is 6. Kevin Bacon also has a website, called Six Degrees, dedicated to donations all across the globe.

In his paper, Six Degrees, along with his mentor, Steve Strogatz, he mentioned that they often came back to the question of how individual behaviour affects collective behaviour. In page 24, one of the many question he proposes,

 (Please forgive me if my usage of the term ‘football’ is different, but from where I came from, football means soccer) An example here would be the basic structure of a football team – goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders, and forwards. If these components are not properly associated together, they would just be footballers without a role. But if these people are sorted based on their skill set, they would form a team.

Watts also mentioned synchrony in terms of how scientists from different fields struggle to understand one another. Same goes to a game of football, the forwards definitely don’t have the mindset of defenders, and a goalkeeper doesn’t have the mindset of a midfielder, but all of them are needed to win a match. In order for a team to be successful, it does not depend entirely on their individual skills, but also other components in the system to compliment it. Watts uses an example of a group of runners,

This is where a manager comes in. He carefully picks players that he’d think will work really well together and ultimately win them matches.

I have to be honest, a sort of anxiety ran through me right after Elliot said that we are to form groups and are to review a specific blog post of our choice. I did. I really did. But I didn’t let it bother me too much as I had a task in hand.

I reviewed Jame’s post, which was a summary on the topic of design fiction. The readings were analyzed in a spot-on fashion and comprehensive manner. (I’m not saying the readings are hard to understand, it’s because I have a very short attention span) I quote James:

The point that caught my eye was his question regarding Ward’s claims, in which I agree upon. The purpose of design is, in literal and altruistic terms, for the future. However, it all comes down to practicality and temporality. Coming to a point where Elliot said that if society needs a piece of technology, then they will find a way to build it. If a design is not practical in the now, then it will be, some day.

His blog featured a picture of the characters of the Star Trek franchise using specific types of communication technology that weren’t invented during that time. Subsequent years passed and eventually the pieces of technology were invented and commercialized. I am astounded by the ability of the Star Trek producers to predict the future so accurately. (whether they realize it, or not)

This brings a thought, we are all in dire need of flying cars, but why don’t we have them yet?

This all comes back to design fiction, and practicality, and temporality, and practice. We may not have flying cars yet, but visioneers are inventing a new future.

It seems apparent that design fiction will become a prominent platform for experimenting, learning, and practice in academia, or in other words, design fiction as pedagogic practice.  One of the definitions of design fiction is “an approach to design that speculates about new ideas through prototyping and storytelling”, as said by Torie Bosch in her article.

“It’s the deliberate use of diegetic prototypes to suspend disbelief of change.” – Bruce Sterling

This is one of the examples of design fiction that I think is worth noting,

From what I understand, design fiction is learning through imagination, considering the fact that the human mind is the most powerful tool one could have. I mean, just a decade ago we were talking about automated cars.

I agree on the note that Ward has pointed out in his work, saying that tons of unwanted or unused proposals, prototypes and concepts are thrown out there. The only thing that’s stopping us from realizing is the practicality, possibility and temporality.  Given the progress of technology and the ever growing field of design fiction, imaginations may soon become reality.

Today marks the beginning of the symposiums that will be held weekly throughout the summer.

Single loop and double loop learning mainly takes decision making into consideration, having that most people make decisions based on results and consequences then reevaluate from  their actions. In my way of understanding, action strategy can be more easily understood by say, the way you go about things.

I have come to realization that blogging will be a routine now and instead of being spoon-fed information like how I am used to, the process of gaining knowledge in a give and take basis over the course of 6 weeks will (hopefully) be more effective for me.

Fingers crossed.