Unless you're Marshall MacLuhan. Then the web is about itself. Which to some extent is true; the Web is about organizing and retrieving information in ways which don't abandon old ways, but generally extend them.
Earlier posters claimed that the examples used by the author aren't much different from a book. The index of a book could certainly be considered like web hyperlinks... The true idea of hyperlinks as being bi-directional would probably move the web into a space where you could claim that it is doing something truly different and forcing the processing of information in new ways. So it becomes something more than a medium.
In any case, the experience of using the web is different from using other communication mediums... think about how you might browse Everything2... very non-linear. Maybe we haven't found a way yet to articulate how to describe the experience correctly... but there is a need to. It seems to me that cyber-theorists shouldn't be looking at how the Web will change everything, but how it has or has not changed now. An investigation of how news was generated and transmitted on Sept. 11 would be an interesting example to examine.
Okay, I better stop before I sound too much like Katz.:-)
Actually, you have the liberty to do that. Freedom is the restriction of liberty for the common good. You have liberty to steal a person's property, but we are theoretical Free From the fear of theft because it is illegal. In this case, the cause of freedom was determined to unfairly tread on our liberties.
The liberty to choose not to play these games and educate to your kids about the values you expect from them is the way to assure your freedom from graphic violent images, if you wish it. The law should only pass a law to maintain freedom when an individual cannot exercise their liberty to maintain that freedom (e.g free from murder, theft, slander, etc.).
Seems to me that the method of picking which encryption to use would also end up being known. The scheme you mentioned above would give you security through obscurity, but not true perfect security.
I forget who said it (must dig through encryption class notes), but the security of a particular encryption system must rely solely on the key to be perfectly secure.
I know somebody with one of the U.S. district courts who is in charge of shipping records to the National Archives for long term storage. One of the problems that the Nationa Archives is having is that courts are moving to digital records. They have to make sure the formats are open and capable of being read, but the real problem is forward migration. The National Archives has millions of records and can't keep up with the load of accepting new stuff and digitizing the old stuff. They want to off-load this to the courts (and other 'clients'), but the courts don't have people who are specialized in record maintenance (librarians, etc.). So what standards do you set for record quality? How do you convert hundreds of hours of audio without playing it back for hundreds of hours?
In some sense, digital formats (data and physical media) are the problem because technology changes too fast. Paper records last thousands of years (just look at papyrus from Egypt)... except that the toner in our laser printers doesn't last as long as the acid free paper.
In my senior year, I took a class which focused on the process of software engineering, and less about the code itself (though a useable program needed to come out of it). The mechanism that help in the evaluations were regular reports to the professor from the individual groups on where the schedule stood and who was assigned, which task. Actual coding was fairly collabrative. The class mostly graded our understanding of group design and project management, so we had to produce reports and specifications on our own.
More importantly, a project lead was chosen out of the group who had a limited amount of influence on the final grade for each team member. So in theory, good work and effort was rewarded, and slackers were punished. Of course, you had to have a fair-minded project lead, but you need to have that in the real world as well.;-)
I've taken a couple of classes that dealt with the status of computers and the visual arts. One of the the interesting theoretical problems with using the computer to make art is the aesthetic of the computer art is often to some degree programmed into it by the designers of the software used to create the art. For example, many images are readily identifiable as having been doctored and/or created with Photoshop (though there are some exceptions as well; that might be criteria for saying what is art made on the computer as opposed to computer art).
Does that make the programmers of Photoshop or (3D Studio or Maya) the artists? Do you have to be a programmer to be a computer artist? Some people think computer artists need to have basic programming skills, or work in concert with programmers, thus making computer art inherently collabrative in order to be successful.
Another theoretical problem is the status of the original in computer art. There is no original in the fine art sense, since a copy of a digital image file is theoretically identical to the original, bit-for-bit. In a sense, it is the same problem with sculptures by Rodin; are castings made from his models after his death originals or copies? (I read an article on this for a class... don't remember the attribution, but the original idea isn't mine). So how do traditional art museums include digital work in the canon? It is hard to assess value on an art work that is infinitely copyable... especially if it is distributed on-line, where each viewing makes a copy somewhere.
The only thing that can be said for sure about computer art is that there will be more of it....it is a new medium that is still looking for its place.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're Marshall MacLuhan. Then the web is about itself. Which to some extent is true; the Web is about organizing and retrieving information in ways which don't abandon old ways, but generally extend them.
:-)
Earlier posters claimed that the examples used by the author aren't much different from a book. The index of a book could certainly be considered like web hyperlinks... The true idea of hyperlinks as being bi-directional would probably move the web into a space where you could claim that it is doing something truly different and forcing the processing of information in new ways. So it becomes something more than a medium.
In any case, the experience of using the web is different from using other communication mediums... think about how you might browse Everything2... very non-linear. Maybe we haven't found a way yet to articulate how to describe the experience correctly... but there is a need to. It seems to me that cyber-theorists shouldn't be looking at how the Web will change everything, but how it has or has not changed now. An investigation of how news was generated and transmitted on Sept. 11 would be an interesting example to examine.
Okay, I better stop before I sound too much like Katz.
Actually, you have the liberty to do that. Freedom is the restriction of liberty for the common good. You have liberty to steal a person's property, but we are theoretical Free From the fear of theft because it is illegal. In this case, the cause of freedom was determined to unfairly tread on our liberties.
The liberty to choose not to play these games and educate to your kids about the values you expect from them is the way to assure your freedom from graphic violent images, if you wish it. The law should only pass a law to maintain freedom when an individual cannot exercise their liberty to maintain that freedom (e.g free from murder, theft, slander, etc.).
Seems to me that the method of picking which encryption to use would also end up being known. The scheme you mentioned above would give you security through obscurity, but not true perfect security.
I forget who said it (must dig through encryption class notes), but the security of a particular encryption system must rely solely on the key to be perfectly secure.
I know somebody with one of the U.S. district courts who is in charge of shipping records to the National Archives for long term storage. One of the problems that the Nationa Archives is having is that courts are moving to digital records. They have to make sure the formats are open and capable of being read, but the real problem is forward migration. The National Archives has millions of records and can't keep up with the load of accepting new stuff and digitizing the old stuff. They want to off-load this to the courts (and other 'clients'), but the courts don't have people who are specialized in record maintenance (librarians, etc.). So what standards do you set for record quality? How do you convert hundreds of hours of audio without playing it back for hundreds of hours?
In some sense, digital formats (data and physical media) are the problem because technology changes too fast. Paper records last thousands of years (just look at papyrus from Egypt)... except that the toner in our laser printers doesn't last as long as the acid free paper.
In my senior year, I took a class which focused on the process of software engineering, and less about the code itself (though a useable program needed to come out of it). The mechanism that help in the evaluations were regular reports to the professor from the individual groups on where the schedule stood and who was assigned, which task. Actual coding was fairly collabrative. The class mostly graded our understanding of group design and project management, so we had to produce reports and specifications on our own.
;-)
More importantly, a project lead was chosen out of the group who had a limited amount of influence on the final grade for each team member. So in theory, good work and effort was rewarded, and slackers were punished. Of course, you had to have a fair-minded project lead, but you need to have that in the real world as well.
I've taken a couple of classes that dealt with the status of computers and the visual arts. One of the the interesting theoretical problems with using the computer to make art is the aesthetic of the computer art is often to some degree programmed into it by the designers of the software used to create the art. For example, many images are readily identifiable as having been doctored and/or created with Photoshop (though there are some exceptions as well; that might be criteria for saying what is art made on the computer as opposed to computer art). Does that make the programmers of Photoshop or (3D Studio or Maya) the artists? Do you have to be a programmer to be a computer artist? Some people think computer artists need to have basic programming skills, or work in concert with programmers, thus making computer art inherently collabrative in order to be successful. Another theoretical problem is the status of the original in computer art. There is no original in the fine art sense, since a copy of a digital image file is theoretically identical to the original, bit-for-bit. In a sense, it is the same problem with sculptures by Rodin; are castings made from his models after his death originals or copies? (I read an article on this for a class... don't remember the attribution, but the original idea isn't mine). So how do traditional art museums include digital work in the canon? It is hard to assess value on an art work that is infinitely copyable... especially if it is distributed on-line, where each viewing makes a copy somewhere. The only thing that can be said for sure about computer art is that there will be more of it....it is a new medium that is still looking for its place.
I think they mean developed in terms of improving or working on new applications for it.