It’s the eye of the eagle. Photo: Beverly
Here’s a shout out to anyone who ever wondered what it would be like to be a bird. Well, for now at least, technology stands as a hurdle, but we can get pretty close thanks to Go Pro cameras. Not only do you get a sweet close up look at an eagle during flight, but you also get an incredible view of the French Alps. Not to mention an interesting look at the flight patterns of an eagle.
Check it out:
Technology will kill us all. Photo: Dave
The relationship between technology and culture, as Murphie and Potts have pointed out, is a highly contentious debate. One with many vastly different views and opinions. Amongst the differing theories and studies behind this relationship, there is an underlying factor. That is that there IS a relationship between culture and technology. It is without a doubt that they interact. They quote Marcel Mauss with a valuable idea:
we are everywhere faced with physio-psycho-sociological assemblages of series of actions. These actions are more or less habitual and more or less ancient in the life of the individual and history of society
This idea ties technology, techniques and society into each other. The technologies shape and are shaped by the techniques surrounding them, that become imbedded in society, passed down through culture and ancestory, as well as instinctive behaviours.
Murphie and Potts also teach as some valuable definitions for terms; technique, technology and culture.
Technique is expanded upon, from simply being a skill or way in which a technology is used, into the entire tree of thought stemming from a technology. The psychological thinking, the way it’s used, the way it is thought of and the way society and the individual utilises it.
As for technology, they offer us a number of definitions, from respected theorists and academics.
That constellation of knowledge, processes, skills and products whose aim is to control and transform
Ordered systems that involve people, organisations, living things and machines
It is clear that technology has been interpreted differently since the inception of the idea, and as Murphie and Potts state, the word has been broadened to include a greater arc of thinking.
Culture is dynamic and multiple in its meaning. It can be applied to a wide range of ideas, thus Murphie and Potts argue that it is always changing, hence dynamic. Culture changes with society and technology.
These ideas are all intertwined, for better or worse. There’s no yes/no, but we can definitely acknowledge the relationship that exists between these ideas.
3rd from the left.
Over the weekend I spent time recording an interview of sorts with my Grandfather. It was more or less just a conversation, I guess, in which he explained his childhood in Nazi Germany and his experiences from the Second World War. While it is interesting enough in its own right, what really intrigued me was the amount of information that I recorded that nobody from my family had heard before.
For me, it really put into perspective how lucky my Grandfather is to be alive and in one piece, and to have had a relatively happy and fortunate life in Australia, if you could call it that. He’s certainly been through a lot. It’s obvious where the traits in his character come from. Resilience, determination, loyalty, care and love. I guess those kinds of experiences shape your character, for better or worse. In this case, it’s a positive shaping.
I did not realise the extremity of the situation that he was in. I had heard many stories before, and read accounts and reflections penned by his hand. But listening to the words straight out of his mouth made it sound so much more horrific and personal.
It is astonishing how clear his memory and recollection of these events is. For someone who is in his 80’s he’s exceptionally sharp. Again, I guess when the events in your life are so powerful, it imbeds vivid images in your mind. Staying active too, helps.
To make top off the afternoon session of recording, he received a phone call from a German friend. A fitting end, I guess, to a day of story telling, and reflection of the past.
As of late, the history of my family and their past has become something that I value highly. I guess as people age it becomes more of a pressing issue, to find some way to preserve the great stories and tales and maintain memory and record that in a way immortalises the story. It is best not to forget some things, like where you come from. What shaped you. What made you It helps you understand someone, and makes it simple to feel empathetic towards them.
I think learning a little about others beginnings is something that helps you put your own life in perspective, whether you realise how much easier you have it, how much harder they had it, how much good someone has done, how great their character is. Perhaps there would be less conflict in the world if everyone understood and respected where everybody else comes from, and what their story is.
The future is bright and beautiful. Photo: Dan Tentler
Networked media (What is Networked Media?) must tie in to all this stuff about National Network schemes and Australia’s NBN right? The viability of the network is dependent on society’s access to the network. To obtain the full benefits of interactive media, online content and subscription services, high level internet access is important. For me, with the recent election, one of the most important issues was the NBN. With such a tremendous focus from the IT industry and Media industry on cloud computing and interactive media, to remain competitive with the world leaders in business, health, medicine and education, we need infrastructure that is going to support the growing demands of the cloud. We now run into a number of problems with our new Liberal Government. They said they were all about infrastructure upgrades, yet failed to recognise the importance of the NBN. While politicians like Malcolm Turnbull like to think the NBN was an important election issue, in reality both campaigns failed to spend enough time on the issue. The Coalition obviously made a smart move in not bringing it up too much, because they knew that their NBN was inferior.
While I am not going to jump on board and say that Labor’s NBN plan is perfect (There are certainly some issues that need addressing), I am willing to say that it has the best intentions in mind for the future of Australian telecommunications. Maybe Tony Abbot and co. lacked a good understanding of design and design fiction? Because their version of the NBN certainly does not take into account the ever-growing demands of internet based technologies.
I think the issue of cost should be disregarded for the time being. There is plenty of competition over the fact that Labor’s NBN was expensive and the Coalition’s was cheap. But I think there’s plenty of evidence from economics and IT experts to suggest that the cost of the ALP’s NBN would be paid off in full over time, with excessive profit. Blogger Steve J presents some very valid evidence and arguments about this issue. So let’s put that aside for now.
For those have no idea what’s going on so far I’ll give you a brief summary. to put it simply, the ALP’s NBN was a Fibre-to-the-premise network (FTTP), where fibre optic cabling would be rolled out to 93% of homes in Australia. This would give us a fibre network with a top speed capacity (in appropriate time) of up to 1Gb/ps, as countries such as South Korea have proved. Currently, the top speed available to users with access to the NBN in Australia is 10oMb/ps. In Tasmania, 44% of the population with NBN access pay for this top tier access. In the rest of Australia, 31%.
Contrary to Turnbull’s assertion of “nobody needs more than 25Mbps”, the real income figures of NBN Co released on 19-April, show that 31% of consumers are already paying for 100Mbps.
There is obviously a demand for it in Australia. In comparison, the Coalition NBN is a Fibre-to-the-node network (FTTN), which works on a skeleton of fibre optic cabling, with connections between homes and the “nodes” relying on our decaying and aging copper wire installations. Top speed and potential is always going to be 100Mb/ps, the maximum data rate achievable through the old wires. There’s no room for improvement. Bottlenecks will appear and make the new network installation almost useless.
Here’s a petition on change.org, which has attracted huge interest in only two weeks from Australians. It clearly presents all the points of contention regarding the NBN and makes the Liberal NBN seem effectively useless. Once you’ve had a gander over there, check out what Malcolm Turnbull had to say about it. It’s clear that the Liberal’s don’t really have a lot up their sleeves when it comes to defending their network scheme.
Last Saturday there was a general election at which the NBN was one of the most prominent issues. The Coalition’s NBN Policy – which can be read here had been published in April – five months ahead of the election. The Coalition won the election.
Not content with having people pick apart and obliterate his NBN, Mr Turnbull has obviously decided the best response to ignore the argument and downplay it. Clearly if the Liberal’s won the election everybody wants their NBN, because it was such a big issue that was debated and discussed in comparison to Asylum seekers, the carbon tax, etc. Go ahead and have a read of the Coalition’s NBN policy that is linked to in the quote from Turnbull. The only issue that it makes you think about is money. And we’ve concluded that isn’t the key issue.
One thing that has struck me throughout this debate is that the Coalition believe there is sound evidence from other countries such as the UK, US and NZ to exhibit resounding success for a FTTN network. Sure there has been successes from this kind of network, of course there will be an increase in speeds. But the big issue here is that most of these countries are already moving to a FTTP solution. It’s obvious that a FFTN network is redundant in the grand scheme of things. Why would we spend billions upgrading our infrastructure to something that is not even at all competitive with world leaders, when we could upgrade to a very feasible, more expensive network that is cutting edge technology and potential?
Time and money are against the ALP NBN, but sometimes rushing things isn’t the best option. If we take a big step to FTTP now, we will eliminate the need for another change of infrastructure 10 years down the track. That’s not only saving more time in the long run, but money. Two big infrastructure projects will always cost more than a giant one. The fact that the ALP NBN will actually bring huge profits in the end should negate all issues of cost. Steve J makes some excellent findings and arguments for the ALP NBN in this article: The Real Deal on the Coalition NBN: same price, worse outcomes.
So while you wrap your head around that one, I’ll give you something simple, interactive and graphically based that might send the message more simply. How Fast is the NBN? That site provides real time examples of download times using both the ALP and Coalitions desirable speeds.
Petition against Coalition NBN
Malcolm Turnbull response to their NBN’s opposition
An article on South Korea’s world leading Telecomms network (Also Paul Budde)
Peter Jackson’s membership in the Order of New Zealand is Gandalf Approved. Photo: Ian McKellen
Yesterday Sir Peter Jackson became an Additional Member of the Order of New Zealand, the highest honour available to someone in New Zealand (That’s contentious I guess, but technically speaking). There are only twenty living people at a time who are members of the Order of New Zealand, with only a handful of “Additional members” who receive the same rights and regard as the official members. He’s also the youngest member of the order, at the age of 51, by a good ten years. For a film director and producer to be anointed such a prestigious position is an exceptional honour, but also shows the effects that one person can have on a nation and an entire industry.
The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research conducted a study into the effects the Lord of the Rings films had on New Zealand’s economy and film industry. The rise in jobs, studios and financing as a result of the films are astounding. There is realistic and appropriate evidence to suggest that the films single handedly boosted the New Zealand film industry from zero to hero in the space of several years. The study is well worth a read for anyone interested in the economical aspects of the film industry or the film industry of New Zealand.
All this is a result of the attitude of one man, which I have discussed previously, and the aspirations and enthusiasm of his youthful interest in film. Peter Jackson’s love of his home country meant to him that the films couldn’t be filmed anywhere else in the world. A decision the New Zealand government have loved. Not only have the films caused a huge boost in the industry, but they also caused a jump in tourism.
New Zealand is now affectionately regarded as Middle Earth to fans of the movies and Tolkien’s universe. There’s nothing that could make your country more enticing than a label like that. In reality, the New Zealand Tourism department didn’t need to say a thing, once people found out it was filmed in New Zealand, the message spread itself. It is worthwhile to honour those who deserve it, and I think that Peter Jackson has firmly cemented his deservingness of this title through the huge impact that he’s had on the nation of New Zealand. So on this day, I tip my hat.
Amazon, it’s a jungle out there. Photo: Michael Durwin
One of the important aspects of Anderson’s Long Tail and the Unsymposium this week was the interconnectivity of the network and the recommendation engines of online shopping sites and services. As I touched on last week, I’m a fan of services like Spotify and other ways of buying “things” online. One of my reasons for liking Spotify is the artist recommendations that I get, based on what I listen too. It opens up worlds of exploration. However as was discussed in the Unsymposium, there are some issues regarding these systems. They are mainly based on the technical component of the recommendation; meaning the engine that runs the system as Adrian said. Services like Facebook make recommendations that are based on advertising and money making. They should be ignored, or at least dealt with more thoroughly. Something like Amazon or Spotify make recommendations based on what you and other people are interested in, and how one product relates to another. This is a much better system and one that has much more potential.
I have a bone to pick with these systems though. When I first started to buy things from Amazon, I thought great! Look at all these interesting books, movies and albums that I would have never thought to look at. Now I’ve been buying things online for years and they’ve harvested a lot of my personal data. Unfortunately I have varied interests, like most people. Sometimes I get a good recommendation. The rest of the time, I don’t. I have sent Amazon’s emails to my spam folder. The problem? As soon as I show interest in something that is incredibly popular, say for example a blu-ray like Marvel’s The Avengers, my personal recommendations become over powered by garbage. Millions of people like that movie, they look at it, wish list it and buy it. That means I start getting lots of recommendations for the big box office hits of the year. The problem with this? Unlike a lot of people who buy movies, I’m not really interested in the biggest and best movies for the most part. What began as a personal recommendation has been polluted and violated by trends. I guess that’s the problem of buying a huge range of different items from these sorts of services, it becomes almost like a grocery store. It wouldn’t make sense for Woolworth’s to recommend carrots to people who buy bread, simply because so many people do large grocery runs that contain both. Sure some people might be interested in both, but if you’re looking for a recommendation, it needs to be more specific. Perhaps these systems in their current form are best for purists and people who tend to purchase only products from a niche market online. I guess their potential is limited by the current software and engines that run these systems.
So in some ways, there are issues with these systems limiting the scope of what you buy, like Elliot said. But I’d also like to believe what Jasmine said, about it not being an issue because people are capable of ignoring the system. I think media literacy comes into it again. As someone who has grown up with these things coming into play and has studied media and advertising, I’m pretty switched on when it comes to these recommendations. I’m confident enough on the web to make my own decisions, and know when a recommendation is relevant or simply just another popular pick. For me, they don’t really create an issue, other than the fact that I don’t get to reap the benefits of them properly. A lot of people who aren’t as experienced with web based media and recommendation systems, don’t take recommendations lightly, they’ll follow up on them, especially if they’re something super popular. What it really comes down to is your literacy and knowledge of your own tastes and interests, in combination with recommendations. On Spotify I tend to ignore a lot of recommendations, because they’re bands I don’t like. There’s a few bands I like that are like a diamond in the rough. Maybe one band out of a genre that I find entertaining. Where Spotify assumes that I like thinks simply based on what other people like and similar music, that’s not really how my tastes work. Perhaps I ask too much of the system? I think though that they are definitely a positive factor of the network and something that I can see being developed and implemented to become more personal and effective in the future, as Adrian said.
A small part of the internet. Photo: Cesar Harada
After learning about the 80/20 rule in Business Management during VCE I was fascinated with the seemingly magical equation that is very relatable to a lot of areas of life. The rule is important to business matters, mathematical studies (Maths methods, another fantastic part of the VCE curriculum – good riddance), and the all powerful network. I guess I was exposed to it regularly in high school as a result of these sorts of classes making up the bulk of my curriculum.
I also find network structures interesting and enjoy the strand of thought that goes along with them. Here’s something I posted back at the start of my blogging career.
Adrian’s rough equation that the rule applies to the blogging makes sense too. It ties right back into power and the world, society, economics, whatever you want to call it. There is always power inequalities in the world. I guess the fact that countries like America manage to have some of the richest people in the world, as well as the poorest contributes to this. It’s a natural sort of structure and hierarchy that humans have become a part of.
And so the relevance of this in regard to the network, (apart from all the obvious links and connotations) is that to have power in the network, you need to be part of the 20. The more links to your blog, website, business, or whatever property you own on the network there are, the more power you have over the network’s economy. The more connections there are to your node, the more relative control you have. I say relative because you cannot control the network. The network is its own being. But you can certainly help shape it to an extent. If you put something out there that’s worthwhile, people will resonate with it, learn from it, refer to it, link to it. All of a sudden, you become a power node. Instead of a link from your Mum to your blog, suddenly there are millions of people, website and organisations interacting with your node in the network.
Back to the big picture, as Barabási notes in Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, the prominence of complex structures and power relations in systems such as the network, yield to a new kind of order. While in some applications, such as economical inequality, the 80/20 rule can be indicative of a negative system, for a intricately designed web of nodes such as the network, the power balance is important. It gives the network a way in which to organise itself, it makes it understandable and accessible.
Seven Samurai for Seven Weeks. Photo: ORAZ Studio
So as we enter the seventh week of semester, the symposium enters its 4th incarnation. It was an interesting hour of discussions and debates, one that yielded enough to satisfy the avid networked media fan. It’s very interesting to see the ideas of three minds collide, and certainly makes for a much more invigorated sense of learning. I think I found one aspect of the symposium more interesting then any other, coincidentally it was one that was touched for the longest. That is the issue of authorial control.
Coming from a background of learning about communication and audience theories, I have always found the control (or lack of) of the author to be a complex and intriguing debate. It is clear that people from different backgrounds and with alternative ideologies have substantially different views. The key is to find the common ground. I think that’s what’s so important about the symposiums for networked media. In the end thanks to some thorough rebuttals and discussion from our celebrity panel, it was clear that there is an authorial intent in the work, but you can’t expect to have control over the audience. Something I agree with. Timeless debates have raged over this issue, and it is quite contentious. But it is true that you will never be able to control what your audience read from your message (Goodbye hypodermic needle).
With that being said, Brian and Elliot both raised valid points in that there are conventions and expectations that history and society prove can to some point be relied on. That is being said, I think, that there is a certain extent to which you can safely suggest your message will be received, the way you intended, based on certain principles that are pre-learned and developed.
It would be rash to suggest that the message intended by a filmmaker is not to some greater extent received by the audience (if he sends it and codes it properly). But it is also definitely valid that the work does not grant you access to the mind of the creator. Not their person anyway.
It is valid to point out that a work of an artist will carry their values and beliefs to an extent. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, bias and so forth that they take into the creative process, and in some way this will always end up impacting the work that is created. But as Adrian pointed out, context gets left behind. As society changes, so to do the contexts in which we consume texts. That’s what the author can’t control. I guess that’s why it’s hard for a lot of people to watch an old black and white monster film, and feel any sense of thrill, excitement, shock, or horror. They’ve seen it already. We’re a different society. I’ve tried watching the old Universal Monster films with friends (Some of my favourite all time films) and they usually end up laughing. Most people don’t take the time to consider things from a different context to the one that they understand, breathe and live in.
Photo: Sean MacEntee
I gave this a little thought awhile back. Jake makes some good points, and offers a different perspective. One that I agree with completely. Subscription and cloud based services offer us something extraordinary; that is the ability to literally carry everything from the world around us in our pockets. Well, not exactly, it’s all up in the cloud (That’s also known as Council Bluffs in Iowa, USA). But still, we have access to it all in our pockets. And that’s what we need, to increase productivity, efficiency and accessibility. The potential wealth of knowledge and data available to us as beings of this earth is sensational. It’s the kind of thing that was unfathomable to most, but George Orwell, 50 years ago. And it’s great.
As Chris Anderson notes in “The Long Tail”, this accessibility also provides us access to the entire network of knowledge. It’s thanks to this huge network and the interconnectivity it yields that we have access to so many great things. I’m definitely an advocate of this. I love music. I can’t afford to pay huge dollars to go see an unknown band to satisfy my ever increasing hunger for good music. I can subscribe to Spotify though. Recommended artists. Perfect. Only problem is, sometimes I feel I get a little swamped by people like Amazon, Spotify, Ebay and their other friends. Sometimes they try and do a little more than suggest, they almost preach. They know so much about me, yet why do they still offer me the latest tracks from some pretentious hipster black metal band I clearly have no interest in? I think sometimes the only problem with these services is the network is so complex and interrelated, that sometimes things that seem relatable to you, don’t actually relate to you. There’s plenty of people out there who like The Rolling Stones and the Beatles.But there’s some who are Beatles purists and won’t touch the Rolling Stones and their “edgy” rip off of the Beatles. That’s where the computer loses. Some things can’t be predicted. While the network can help computers relate to us, it also reminds us that computers are not people.
Alois also raises valid contentions in this response. The digital and cloud technologies are less resource heavy then physical belongings, they’re simpler to store. That’s why they’re great. And I guess, for people like Alois, who only use things once, it is an obvious choice as to which kind of possession is more suitable. This is why the possibilities of technology are so exciting. For some people though, like myself, the experience that is related to the physical mediums is to rich to give up. Is it still wasteful to have a tangible possession if you use it repeatedly? I have a lot of things, and I lament it at times as space can be an issue. But I love to immerse myself in these things too much to give up on “real things”. I have lots of books, but I read them more than once. I have lots of records, but I have listened to them through a multitude of times (that number’s still counting). I have a lot of Blu-ray movies, but I watch them more than once. I’m not saying that digital possessions can’t be used more than once. But to me if it’s an experience you can repeatedly enjoy, I do not see it as a waste.
I guess that brings us to the crux, and my initial statement. I talked about this a while back, and it’s something I support. I can’t see a reason why it wouldn’t be viable in the market. It’s a great idea. Physical books being accompanied by a download for a free ebook version. One of the reasons I haven’t given up my physical possessions is that when I buy a lot of them (most vinyl records, all blu-rays, etc) is that they come with a digital version. I have a beautiful tangible object that yields an experience that is more intimate and irreplaceable, but I also have a convenient and accessible version that I can take with me wherever I go. I think this is the path to go down for the future. Sell digital content of all medias on its own. But sell physical versions with a digital interpretation. It would help propel the digital industry and help connect more people to the network, while still embracing the traditional experience based medium.
The best of both worlds. Photo: Luis Perez
Well, not exactly. But it’s pretty much Spotify for books. This is something I could grow to enjoy, I think. Perhaps with time as the library expands, though I expect that the prices would have to increase. Surely there’s not going to be enough money coming out of it to satisfy publishers. Interesting enough though, to say the least. Another discouraging feature for me is that it is an iPhone only app, with a future iPad release scheduled. I don’t own either of those devices, or plan on owning them any time soon. Maybe an iPad isn’t beyond my wildest imagination, but I’d prefer to buy a device intended for reading, like a kindle. Having had a little play around with a few e-readers and the iPad, I much prefer the screens used on the kindles and e-readers. The iPad screen is beautiful, vibrant and clear. Perfect for video, apps, internet surfing, etc. But it isn’t perfect for reading. I have sensitive eyes, the balance between brightness, softness, contrast on the iPad and iPhone just doesn’t seem to stack up for me, especially compared to the kindle – a device obviously designed purely for reading, with a lot more thought into the ease of viewing that the screen has.
None the less, this is a good idea, I think. I was a fan of Spotify, but I’m also a fan of vinyl. Just like I could be a fan of this in the future I’m also a fan of books. I like to collect things, I like to touch things and immerse myself in the experience of things. I think there’s something that the digital media of the world will never be able to do. Replace that experience. They try, oh yes they do. Hypermediated mediums that are designed to replicate that experience are prevalent in our society. The digital world has a lot to offer, but it will be very hard to match the experience of the analogue world. I guess that’s where we have it good. If we want an experience, it’s easy enough to get it. If we want convenience, compact size and accessible media, we can get it even more easily.
Either way you look at it, there’s enough of each to please everyone, I think it’s a matter of finding a balance and finding a purpose for the multitude of formats and mediums that are on offer.