Wow. Just wow. Galant, lean, just the right amount of muscle. Suave. Ooooh. Nerves are kicking in. The gorgeous man looks deep into your eyes and you literally melt. His muscles glean as the sunlight hits each contour. There’s a little flirtation as you look away and resume this chemistry between you both. So, in one swift movement, without thinking twice, you swipe right. Oh, it’s a match! Thank god.

Just recently I started dating my very own Flynn Rider (Tangled love interest… duh!). He started off exactly how I thought a guy should: flirty, handsome, cheeky, rebellious, and the perfect dash of naughtiness. It all started on New Years Eve, when I spotted him at an old friend’s place, casually smoking a cigarette and flashing girl passersby sexy pout eye-tilts (you know when a guy pouts a little and his eyebrows raise just slightly and you just know he’s thinking about what you’d look like naked). But, some seven months later, I’ve been there, done that, and am still looking for my Charming. Where is he?

Today, everything’s about physicality, shock, being picky, and getting what we want when we want. But all the while being laced with fairytale ideologies, we get caught up trying to find our prince charming. Melbourne… welcome to Tinder.

After all the heartbreak, tears, conversations with girlfriends and relationships… is it time to ask the obvious question: Are we brought up to look for the best guy for us, or the best guy? Are we so obsessed trying to find ‘the one’ that we get callously misguided by fairytale endings being the only one true happy ending for ourselves?

Of what I’ve learnt, there is no best guy, at least not in general. If Samantha Jones has taught us anything about sex, cities and relationships it’s that the ideal guy is an illusion, and it’s time to start living our lives.

When I was little I would wrap my bright red skivvy around my head, put on one of my mother’s bras and lay on a pretend rock of clean laundry and wait for my Eric to come rescue me from deep below the ocean. Or so I thought anyway. I was convinced that Ariel had the most glamourous, wonderful life and that without a tail, true love’s first kiss and a sea witch, I was never going to make it.

Well, I don’t know about you, but my first kiss was a lot less than glamourous. We had the under-the-sea part right – or at least the lack of oxygen and litre of saliva made it feel like that.

And, really, what’s so amazing about trading your identity, changing yourself into a completely different organism, ditching your family and promising to never return to the sea… all for a guy?! Be yourself ladies. If there’s one thing Ariel doesn’t teach us, it’s this, you are amazing the way you are.

We all know that we live in a physical world. Spaces like Tinder, Facebook and Instagram are incredibly influencial and encourage this concept. Guys are brutal sometimes, from commenting on a girls’ looks in front of others to not giving you the time of day or even smiling or saying hi if they don’t find you the most attractive in the room.

But what we have to realise is that guys are really just as lost as we are. They are convinced that either they deserve a “princess” or that they are never good enough for most of us and hence comes the “screw-over” (when you’re seeing a guy for a little while, who then decides when it’s time to work out what you are, he “isn’t good enough for you or for anything”).

Let’s face it, guys have their own fairytale complexes which they’ve been fed. But if we don’t strive to be a princess and fairytale ideals then men will have to face reality and won’t look for princesses. E.g. eric never had to change himself to be with Ariel. Their relationship would have been stronger had they both compromised, maybe he should have taken on a few scales.

If a girl is brought up to believe she’s a princess, then she forms the idea that she’s entitled to a royal life… a fairytale. It’s when she gets lost in the forest of reality that she confuses disney romance for real romance.

Us girls get caught up in these fairytale idologies associated with what a man should be, that we get let down by guys because they perceive that they’ve got the prince thing down-pat by either going out shooting things, being tough and silent about their true feelings, or being in love with their vehicles (whether horse, motorbike, skateboard or car).

I think what we need to remember is, we’re not entitled to a prince… just as guys are not entitled to a princess.  Relationships are about living in reality, patience, understanding and most of all COMPROMISE GUYS.  For all Ariel goes through, I mean having to split your tail into legs just sounds painful… Perhaps Eric could’ve taken on a few scales.

In my previous post I dealt with the issues around technological communication and human technologies and their relationship with art and culture.

Another area from the symposium that interested me (although confused me at the same time), was the idea of an alternate interweb.  Ted Nelson is an American philosopher and sociologist who is a pioneer in the set up and structure of communication technology.  In 1960, he founded Project Xanadu and in turn came to question the future validity and currency of the World Wide Web.  He challenged the concept behind the World Wide Web under the following reasoning:

“Today’s popular software simulates paper. The World Wide Web (another imitation of paper) trivialises our original hypertext model with one-way ever-breaking links and no management of version or contents.”

Project Xanadu Wikipedia page

Although he’s getting on a bit now, his theories and thought processes are still incredibly current and (despite us thinking we have a fluid and flexible internet), have yet to penetrate the rigid information technology of today.

Ted envisioned a two-way or multi-way online network and actually came up with an alternative interweb.  Even though we do not use his concept, it is interesting to analyse what makes his point so innovative in the world of information technology.

Ted looked into creating a “docuverse”, which stored all data once, without deletions and where all information was accessible via a link from anywhere else.  He believed that the linear representation of linking and finding connecting information on the web interrupted how we find this content, and that it followed the footsteps of how we view a book, rather than an interactive hypertext web network.  He envisioned a network which was non-linear, which depended on an individual’s choice of links, rather than a specific pathway in which to find this information.

His developments continued to form what is now referred to as a “high-performance hypertext system” which ensures the identity of references to objects and solves configuration management and copyright governance issues. 

Luke Egan’s Thoughts On Technology

Once upon a time, our lecturer Adrian said that culture and art is synonymous with technology.  That art and culture cannot exist without it.

So, this got me to thinking, is the new technology of blogs and social media really poisoning the younger generation’s ability to take part in ‘good ‘ol verbal communication’ or is it a defining point of our culture today?

In fact, while we’re at it, is social media forming a break between ourselves and others and the world around?  It is encouraging narcissism or just giving us a voice in the modern day?

While we were listening to Adrian he made an important point.  With all these ‘what if’, ‘but somehow’, ‘contextually’ type of discussions, it’s essential that we don’t take one side over another.  Sitting on the fence on complex issues surrounding technology is ok in my opinion.  Oh, and Adrian’s too.

The first area I found particularly interesting, as a writer and musician is this sense that culture and art cannot exist without technology. As per usual our lecturer had intense discussion (ok… debate*) with our tutors on this one.  The whole syntax question comes into it… is a tool the same as a technology?  Do we in fact need technologies for cultural practices or do we simply need tools?  And, where do we draw the line between what is a tool and what is a technology… when really, we have to develop and create tools to do these things which involves technology.  Wow, that was long winded, and probably very confusing.  But, I hope it at least sort of sinks in.

I suppose you can bring it down to something quite incredibly boring:  that all technology humans create has function.  E.g. paint brushes are used to paint, which produces art.

However, Adrian, I would like to counteract your broad statement here.  What about the human voice?  What about movement?  I mean, we can say that ballet requires technology, because in order to do some things we need block shoes to stand up.  And, we can even say that some people need a yoga instructor to do yoga.  But, the human voice is something so innately powerful, that I do not believe that we need technology for this particular artform.  Sure, technology is important to art and culture, and today I think we have developed an obsession with NEEDING to involve technology wherever we can.  But, this does not mean that art and culture cannot exist without technology.

I’ll address your other points in my next blog.

Nethaniel’s Blog – We don’t have enough digital literacy.

After the struggles of the weekend just gone and reading Nethaniel’s blog post, I got to thinking:  Do young people really have a strong grasp of network literacy?

In my opinion, no, we do not.  This weekend I took a road trip to the Dandenong Ranges with Michaela, Sarah and Sophie, some RMIT friends to explore some of the hidden treasures of the location.  So, with two Sony MC50s, a tripod and a Zoom H4n we ventured out into the rainforests and tracks of Ferny Creek and Mount Dandenong and shot a whole bunch of fantastic natural gems.  The first problem we encountered was when we needed to change the exposure on the cameras due to the strength of the sunlight that day.  Phew, we worked that one out in a relatively quick amount of time considering we had four girls on the job!  After spending many hours manipulating the cameras’ settings to get the most out of the beautiful scenery and interviews we were taking, it was finally over!

Well, that was until Monday morning, when it came to uploading the videos we’d taken and uploading them to a shared network so that each member in the group could view them and post their thoughts on which takes would make the final cut.  It is safe to say that this was our biggest challenge, simply because we didn’t know HOW to go about organising this.  Not one of us knew.  So, we freaked out something shocking.  We thought we’d safe our videos to a hard drive but the one member of our group who had the storage device was not coming in that day.  So, we ended up saving the videos to a desktop of one computer in the RMIT labs, and crossed our fingers hoping for the best!

This got me to thinking about our course… we are entrusted with these technological devices which we barely know how to use.  I completely get the importance of trial and error and experimentation when it comes to technology.  Ultimately, this is probably the best way to learn how to use cameras, recording devices and computers.  However, being one of the only ones in my Networks class who couldn’t log on to her blog or student directory for almost two weeks worries me (and embarasses me).  We are expected, when we enter this course that we know how to create hypertexts, links online and webpages.  We’re expected to know how to network both in reality and virtually.  However, I’ve only been blessed with the former.  Unfortunately, having only studied one semester of IT in year 7, which is going back more than 7 years now, the term and devices used to network have changed somewhat dramatically.  And, many of us have and will continue to be left behind if we’re not constantly trying to keep up.

Some people have the right personality to do trial and error all day long.  Not me.  I am busier than ever now and, now that we’re being honest, impatient.  When I have an idea of how to use something, I become intrigued to find out more.  For example I learnt how to play three chords on acoustic guitar back in year 8, and since then I’ve managed to teach myself and can now proficiently play almost all chords.  But, without this first step of guidance, I struggle to begin my learning.  Even some inspiration helps me to start.  But, no, none around here.  And, despite realising now, at uni, that I was almost completely network illiterate, I have managed to fall through the cracks throughout my latter years of high school.  The only network I was taking part in was Facebook and my group of friends and extended friends.  I knew how to make links in reality, but not on the network platform.

As Nethanial points out, we know how to read a book, how it is designed, how to content is edited and transferred onto the page, bound and manufactured.  But, we don’t know how networks are designed, let alone produced.  So, even “as we progress through the digital age”, we are almost completely illiterate on a digital network platform.  As technology is changing and evolving so rapidly, I think it is important that we learn how to use these platforms and about how they are designed and made in high school and in the early years of our university courses.  While we’re on that note:  please can we also learn how to use the other devices we’re using PLEASE?!

George P Landow’s text really stole my attention this week.  Coming from a history of limited knowledge in the subject of hypertexts, I found this article provoked my eagerness to go out and find out more, chat to my peers and suss out what hypertexts are and why they can be so helpful in making links in both communicative and educational platforms.

Essentially Landow explores the e-book system and the hypertext system.

They look something like this…  (Note I’ve taken these from Landow’s text ‘Hypertext 3.0).

The first image represents the linear pathway found in e-books.  E-books, as the name suggests continue to follow the linear progression, in a similar way that books do, but simply on a more interactive way.  The second image demonstrates the pathways taken (or not taken) in a hypertext.  Essentially, it is non-linear, and the reader may choose whichever pathway they wish.  It is important to note here the traditional linear progression which is embedded in our society when it comes to books (i.e. As I have covered in earlier blogs, books take a beginning, middle and end approach in the way they reveal information and steer the reader).  Whereas, the hypertext is very much in line with Ted Nelson’s idea of how information should follow links in many directions, with on link which can go many ways, so that the reader may make their own path on the network.  The hypertext positions primary text in a network of links.  In this sense, it is “borderless” (Landow, page 115).

Landow explains that “hypertext enables new forms of the academic essay, book review, and thesis”.  It can be said that in providing all the research available on a subject but with multiple pathways can assist the research in honing in on their specified pathway.

There are 3 basic forms of academic genres:

–  Author places a text without links into an HTML template that includes navigation links (simple)

–  Author creates a document with links to documents on the same website and on other websites

–  The author gives their research document to be made part of a network of documents or collates and produces this network.  They either allow the document to stand alone or to take part in a larger web (page 3, 4)

Blogs can be explained as “a new kind of discursive prose in digital form” which challenge the genre that originally came about when writing first took physical form through “physical marks on physical surfaces”. (page 78)

Unlike diaries or books, blogs have the ability to present their content in reverse chronological order, therefore showing the reader the most up to date content and communication, while some allow readers to also leave their comment on a blog post.  This never happened before with books or physical diaries.  People couldn’t read Anne Frank or Summer Land (fantastic and HILARIOUS new book out!!  And, she’s only 24!  Good read) and ask them what they meant by a phrase or how they felt, or their opinion on an event listed in that book.  Whereas now, with comments available on blogs, the reader can communicate with the author at the touch of a button.

Never before hypertexts could you link different diaries, stories or content from books together (well, at least without going through a highly tedious process or republication)…

Whereas, now, anybody can link one webpage with another, or their blog with another’s or their blog with maps, pictures, short videos to complement their entry.

While we’re at it, never before in print media such as books, magazines and academic journals could you cross reference in a click (you would have to turn the page or find the other book to which was being referred… this could entail having to drive to another library…)

This also begs the question (thanks Adrian Miles), are new media forms such as blogs becoming “an explosion of public life writing by private citizens”?  As, before blogs, not everybody was  writer, and certainly most people could not say that they had published anything.  Whereas now, we can see that everybody now has the ability to distribute their writing publicly, publish their work and their art (photographs etc) and even report (a.k.a. Churn-alism, a term coined by BBC journalist Waseem Zakir in 2008).  In fact, by May 2002, over 800, 000 blogs were recorded on the Net!

I think we can all agree that blogs can make it difficult to keep one’s privacy and personal life private from anyone (employers, employees, old friends, random people, teachers and lecturers… obviously, although this is the point to write blogs as it’s a network media subject).  Because, “once a blog goes online, internet tools can bring it to the attention of [all] web surfers”.

This is why hypertexts can run into problems associated with more active readers to challenge concepts, content and validity.

In our networks class, we are working towards our HTMl coding exam.  We basically need to code in HTML language to match the picture of the webpage end product supplied to us.  Sounds simple enough… to most.

After freaking out, I grabbed Webpages for Dummies from the shelf, got onto Youtube and I decided to get serious and bring it back to basics.

HTML language has been around for a while now.  It’s a fairly primitive language as far as networks and computers go.  Essentially, you employ a program such as Notepad (if you don’t have anything else this is your first stop to test out your HTML skills) or TextWrangler…  You open this application and begin writing in HTML to code for the physical attributes of the webpage you desire.

But, for us technology noobs here’s how I got through preparing for this important Network Media event.

You’ve got to put the HTML tag at the very beginning and very end of your coding sequence.  It’s like a beginning and end saying, THIS IS HTML.

It looks like this:

<html>

</html>

Then we add to this:

<html>

<head>

</head>

</html>

The head tag codes for the the information about the webpage. This will be displayed.

For example…

<html>

<head>
<title>Hello World</title>

</head>

</html>

Secondly we have to make a tag for the body of the webpage… this is where the majority of the information is going to go. And, as you guessed, the body of the webpage has the tag <body> </body>

So, simply add it in…

<html>

<head>

<title></title>

</head>

<body>

</body>

</html>

We will want to make headings, for example…

‘The Red Project’ is the MAIN heading of my blog.

‘HTML: How To Minimise Losing it’ is another smaller heading.  The stuff in this blog is your plain old content!

How to do this?!!?

<h1> </h1> is the largest text (this would be used for the main heading of your webpage)

<h2> </h2> is the second largest… all the way to <h6> </h6> which is the smallest!  It’s pretty simple.  1 = largest font 6 = smallest font
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPMSSsVdPk      >>> The most helful YouTube How-To

“http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_intro.asp”         >>> Great instructions if you prefer reading to watching

When I first told my mum I had started pole dancing, her eyebrows looked as though they would reach space, they were raised so high. She tried to be cool, but slipped out a “Oh, I see…”

Since pole dancing became the latest craze amongst young women, the taboo has just sky-rocketed. Look, sure, it has become the stripper’s art. So why wouldn’t our mothers be worried about us dropping our day jobs and gallivanting off down the flashy, ‘cash-y’ streets with our newfound skills? But, I’m here to tell you all that your interest in pole dancing is not something that you should be ashamed of, nor should you repress it!

What people need to understand, is that not only is pole dancing a fantastic way to tone, improve strength, flexibility and fitness, it is an art form.

Generally when I tell people I pole dance, the very first reaction I get is a deep swallow on their count and a nervous laugh. Later on, I hear that I have, apparently, gone from your everyday redhead, to a conniving, shocking slut. So, I decided it was time to stand up to this and stop feeling guilty when bringing pole dancing into conversation. Sometimes, I’m made to feel like Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman, the way people judge me when the words ‘pole’ and then ‘dance’ come out of my mouth.

First of all, let’s address this: Pole dancing originated as a traditional art form in China and India. Mallastambha, which is a form of pole dancing is an ancient Indian sport. It actually was and still is more popularly performed by men.

Mallastambha took the form of a true discipline, whereby the artist would work relentlessly on their strength, dexterity and agility, in order to compete and perform on an iron pole, also known as the ‘stambha’.

Pole dancing origins trace back through African tribal dances.

Despite this form of dance taking its roots from mating rituals, pole dancing in African tribes was designed to show off the beauty of the woman, who would dance to her betrothed. She would dance in such as way as to tell her future husband how she wanted to make love on their wedding night. Ok, sure, it was essentially, the way to hook up, but it wasn’t like the women did this for every guy. I think girls of today parading around clubs with next to no clothes on, and drag queen make-up is far more scandalous than one who wants to show her beauty through dance.

Pole ≠sex

At the end of the day, anyone can use basically any object and make it sexy. Chairs, beams… other people, you name it! But, the pole is simply a pole. No matter what some people say about phallic imagery there. It’s a tall beam thing, not a sex accessory, nor was it created for that purpose.

Challenge yourself and get fit

I’ve been doing pole dancing privately and with a couple of friends for over a year now. Since I started, my self esteem has improved even more, because I’ve proven to myself that I can conquer my fears; from upside-down tricks, to just being me. I no longer feel awkward and jittery. Every woman has the right to feel sexy and beautiful and proud of herself. Dancing has always made me feel beautiful. So, haters gonna hate, but who’s got the flat tummy?

Luke’s funniness in a blog!

This week’s hilarious class discussion, and the deliriousness of most of our table heavily impacted the level of discussion we could have on Elliot’s prompt: list something interesting from the readings and something even more interesting from the symposium and write them on the board.

First, I ran into an debate with Elliot on whether he actually meant for us to physically write on the board or ‘virtually’ and when.  Not a good start.  Safe to say I was pretty darn exhausted after a long week of work.  But, still in that fantastic state of mind where you find every mistake you make utterly hilarious… and, you don’t even mind when Luke and Luke tease you about not knowing how to work your own blog.

See that guys ^ that’s some NICE linking. So I believe #helpsophie is now redundant. YAY.

Anyway… massive segway there just to prove a linking point! So, I asked my table based on the symposium lecture… How do they validate things?

The first response quite literally staggered me, from our very own Bella: “From Twitter.. duh!”
The second was: “Wikipedia or google or something…”

This lecture also happened to be on the afternoon after Robin Williams was claimed to have died. Having heard something in the rumour mill along these lines, I had clicked onto Google and seen that yes, his Wikipedia page repeated this. But, that only one news source had reported on it. It only took half an hour more to work out that Robin Williams had in fact passed away. In the shock of it all, I wondered: How do I know that this is correct? It’s all over Facebook, but how do I check the validity of these claims?

I realised I look straight to the internet search engine, because I know it’s updated constantly throughout the day and the night and that even though there will be a lot of noise out there, that pretty quickly someone will silence the questions. Someone like… The Guardian… The Age.

And, even though Bella’s statement about Twitter surprised me, when you think about it, Twitter, although being a platform with so many intertwining voices, can bring news to your attention quicker than almost any other form of media today. I’m not so certain on confirming news via this platform, but I’d sure start to question an event or point in history if I saw it mentioned or trending.

Recently, I got to thinking: is technology really making our everyday activities more efficient an giving us more time to spend on other stuff?

Taking the train each day to work and uni, I see many characters get on and off.  All of them sharing one thing: they’re all clutching a smart phone in one of their hands.

There’s always so many conversations, thoughts and videos going on in every carriage, but yet no one is actually talking, or at least to each other anyway.

The guy next to me is frustrated because his phone forgot to remind him about the his 10 o’clock meeting that morning, which he subsequently missed.  The girl opposite me is smiling as she scrolls through Facebook pages.  The older man a few seats ahead of me is listening to a video on the Ukraine and Russia tension out loud.  Guess he hasn’t caught on to the headphone phenomenon.

All of this got me thinking… Are smart phones really making our lives easier? Or are they separating us from humanity?  Are we becoming so consumed seeking information through these technology platforms that we get lost in this virtual space?

After talking to friends about this, one of them put it like this:

“My iPhone makes my life easier.  I get so much more done!”
http://youtu.be/bRKOB2xY4Ao

At first, to a degree I agreed with her statement.  But, after thinking about it, I thought about how we define what making our lives easier actually means.  Sure, computers, and in particular the ones that follow us around (phones and tablets) can help us to do more on the run.  Sure, they have allowed us to do things that we could never do ten or twenty years ago out on a train, or on a walk, or at the shops.  We can schedule meetings, talk to people, get global news at the press of a button.  But, is all of this information actually bombarding us?

Now that I have an iPhone, I can’t seem to go anywhere without it.  It has my meetings, alarms to pick things up, do homework, what to buy at the shops, and even, recently, when to hang out with friends.  I know –v. sad.  I now need my phone to remind me to be social.

And, it’s not the fact that I need to remind myself to have fun.  It’s that I have come to rely on my phone so much, that I simply forget what I am supposed to be doing.

Recently, I went to Vietnam with my Mum and sister.  None of us had our phones.  And, the very first thing that happened… Mum hadn’t printed off our Visas properly.  So, then began the mad rush to the nearest airline lounge to beg to use their computer because we had none of our own.  Next came the getting lost in Ha Noi with my sister.  We were fine because we were together.  But, with no paper map, relying on the iPad, which lost battery, and completely separated by the language barrier, we were stuck.  I even lost track of time… Oops! Yes, because of course I rely on my phone to tell me the time.

This obsession with computers and communication via technological platforms such as Facebook, email, Tinder, Instagram and Twitter even follows us on dates and finding a partner!

Recently, I was sitting at a bar in Brunswick with a couple of friends.  One of them was looking around scouting hotties, while the other had her eyes glued to her phone.  I asked what she was doing.  Turns out, she was on Tinder checking out if there were any good looking guys at the bar that night.  OPEN YOUR EYES WOMAN AND LOOK AROUND YOU!  We can’t even rely on our own primary senses anymore to find places, people or information!

Here’s a an article from The Australian on what Tinder is, if you don’t know.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/tinder-the-app-thats-setting-the-dating-scene-on-fire/story-e6frg8h6-1226933263450?nk=095abc4c3f798f058fc516984b4a37d5

Leading lives with so much reliance on computers means that we start to lose our abilities to communicate naturally.  Our personal computers are also way over complicating things.  In simplifying, they’re really just giving us more stuff to do, more places to look, more things to look out for.  So, in my opinion, that’s just plain hard.  Not easy.

Recently, it’s come to my attention that I am almost completely network illiterate.  And, this is something I am determined to find about more about and change.

But, first of all, what does being network illiterate really mean?

“Network Illiterate Person” = a person who (to a high degree) does NOT understand the network form and is not able to viably curate a presence on a communication technology platform.

So, that’s me basically.  I could argue that I know very well how to curate a presence online…Yes, I have a Facebook account and I know how to create content for it.  But, all this talk about network literacy has got me thinking: Am I ‘network literate’ just because I can create content when I obviously do not understand the form through which I am communicating it?  I mean, after babysitting last night and throwing out the calibration of the channels just trying to simply change the volume probably confirms this technological illiteracy.

In our symposium for Network Media class, my lecturer explained how people today, in fact, more in particular, us as students, know how traditional forms of communication media work, but not the form of blogs or network media.  He argued that we understand how a printer works, and think that we know how a blog works, but that we are misguided in this thought.  He explored this concept by explaining that we know how to change some of the visual elements of our blogs (theme, font, colours etc) but not the HTML language behind our webpages.

Well, after thinking about this, I’ve come to question him… Can we truly compare a physical media form such as a printer, with its toner, ink and different trays and lights with system (blogs and webpages) built by integrated and complicated codes?

Codes vs. physical processes

For blogs are formed by codes, or really, languages.  To understand and be able to control the form of a blog, we need to understand and be able to communicate to computers in this language.  Learning to code HTML is like learning another language.  But, to learn how a printer works, we know that paper is fed into it, that toner is a coloured powder which creates the core ingredient in the xerographic process, that ink creates the words we have decided on, and that paper is the base for this form of media.  Therefore, codes and physical systems are NOT PARALLEL PROCESSES.

So, I’ve come to realise that I am in fact only partially network illiterate.  I can control the content on my blog but not the form.  This is what the blog publisher does.  E.g. WordPress.

“Network Literate” = to have the ability to control the content and the format of a blog or network media.