Hello,

Wanna know all about the facts and history of online bingo games?
The solution to this interesting mathematical problem is there.

The mystic philosophers of yore believed that the soul extended far beyond the physical shell. Was this metaphysics, a mystical glimpse of the future or simply a different way of perceiving the human spirit? Because time is only linear to the puny minds that perceive it, there is always the philosophical view that, because in the grand scheme of things, time is simply another aspect of the clockwork cosmos and it's major breakthroughs will find their ways into the minds meant to break them.
Because of our connectivity and mass media inundation, our electromagnetic avatars have expanded far beyond the reach of the meditators and holy men. Or has it? Are we just fooling ourselves?
Is there maybe a chance that the Buddhists, Rosicrucians and other schizo practicioners of arts forbidden by those who fear them just got part of it wrong?
Perhaps we are not to reach the stars using only the capacity of our minds, leaving our material shells behind on the planet we essentially murdered. Sorry, Tim Leary.
I figure the way things are going - with increased implants and nanotech that can do almost anything - who's to say that the bizarre alchemical marriage between Carbon and Silicon isn't at least a far-fetched feasibility?

Trevor Wallace,
t_rev2323@yahoo.com

1. Mitchell describes the ways that Humans have become increasingly dependent on networking, ranging from communicative to life supporting infrastructure.
2. He points out that not only have computers begun to control the way in which we live our lives, but they are also dictating the actual methods of tracking and managing time in everyday life.
3. The artifical intelligence of computers has expanded in such a way that it is now difficult to know whether or not you are interacting with an actual human or a computer minded bot.

While some technophobes are screaming about nanosurveillence and the threat of Big Brother others worry about the "dehumanization" that seems invariably linked. Yet, ask the same technophobe if he has a cellphone and an email address, and the answer will most probably be "yes". The book "Bowling Alone" suggests that society has been breaking down since the invention of the telephone and we are all islands of one connected by wires, the ether and cyberspace. This may be true to an extent in that we rarely sit on front porches and visit with neighbors anymore, but we are more connected the global situation than ever. Technological progress is not something to fear although the people behind the progress are certainly worthy of critical scrutiny; is this improving the lives of all or the lives of few? The former is what we should be shooting for, but with all the surveillance and privacy violations perpetrated by the rulers of the "free" world point to the latter being the goal. But either way, it's not like we could actually go back to a simpler mode of existence. What would we do with all our cool stuff? Besides, that USB port I plan to have installed in my neck would just wind up being a useless hole.

Trevor Wallace,
t_rev2323@yahoo.com

1. Scalability -

The Long Tail, Chris Anderson. The Long Tail

Overture/AdWords scalability = profit

2. Intentions -

John Battelle, Databse of Intentions - John Batelle

AOL Data Dump

- bt

1. Scalability -

The Long Tail, Chris Anderson. The Long Tail

Overture/AdWords scalability = profit

2. Intentions -

John Battelle, Databse of Intentions - John Batelle

AOL Data Dump

- bt

1. Mitchell discusses wireless technology extensively in relation to the new communities/networks/selves. Excluding cost, is there any reason why wireless technology is specifically the enabling mechanism for the new self Mitchell describes, or is it simply another extension of a broader technological revolution? Would the Me++ emerge in a world that was non-wireless, but otherwise technologically advanced?

2. Mitchell claims that social networks and communities have grown more "fragmented and dispersed" (p 17) as information technology has expanded. How do these new communities compare to the period before nationwide television and radio, before we had a shared culture that revolved around national news and other programming controlled by a small media elite? Obviously, physical distance and face-to-face communication are what made them different, but what about intimacy? Are we becoming closer to each other (even though we may be thousands of miles apart) than we were in the 20th century? How does this compare to pre-20th century society?

3. Mitchell's uses Foucault to claim (p26-7) that information networks create a distributed surveillance network. With the decreased cost and widespread access to internet publishing, is it not also possible that information networks allow the populace to keep an eye on the so-called "Big Brother 2.0"? What are the ramifications of independent news sites for government transparency and accountability.

-Stuart Geiger

1. Recently we have started to see technology that is physically attached to humans such as cell phones that are placed directly in your ear, or corrective lenses that are placed directly in your eye. If this trend continues, will we reach a point where we cease to be truly human?

2. On page 34, Mitchell states, "I don't do much mental arithmetic anymore; calculators and computers take care of that. I don't rack my brain for half-remembered facts; I look them up on the Web." Do you believe we will see in the future schools stop teaching things like algebra and calculus, and instead focus on teaching how do utilize technology for these tasks. Do you believe knowledge in subjects such as History will be viewed as less valuable because of the easy access to this information?

3. Human interaction today is often passing through some sort of technological intermediary such as a cell phone, or an instant messaging client. In what ways are these new forms of human interaction different than face to face interaction.

1. On page 2, Mitchell refers to his handheld device as a "liberating extension of my mobile body." At the end of the page he goes on to compare electronics to biological organs. Exactly how much of ourselves are these things becoming, and how difficult would it be to separate ourselves from them again?

2. On page 8 under the Connections subtitle, Mitchell lists "air, water, waste disposal, energy, transportation, and Internet service providers" as networks. Is it too simplified to see these all as networks? How do they function as networks?

3. On page 11, Mitchell summarizes "Connectivity had become the defining characteristic of our twenty-first-century urban condition." Is this true in other areas? Are there other characteristics valued more than connectivity in some other aspect of twenty-first century life?

-Diana Pruett

1. The extension of person boundaries beyond the immediate physical realm brings up an interesting philosophical debate; The fact that we can be held morally responsible for our affect on someone in a distant place alludes to the need for a new moral framework that can evolve along with this new age of human connectivity.

2. Quantum computing, where the very atom serves as the basic informational bit, would have profound effects on the extension of the person into their informational networks.

3. The spontaneous emergence of hierarchies in feedback-rich systems is an interesting, newly emerging topic of social science. How do virtual communities and their dynamics compare to their real life analogues?

-Will

“Extension and entanglement trump enclosure and autonomy.” – This quote by Mitchell reminds me of a article I read last year by Paul Virilio on the “Cyberspace Alarm” and how he believes that space has been almost completely eliminated as a worldwide barrier due to the speed at which modern “networks” of any sort function. Time is the last barrier to conquer.

“time no longer presents itself as one damn thing after another, but as a structure of multiple, parallel, sometimes cross-connected and interwoven, spatially distributed processes that cascade around the world through networks.” – the idea of doing things one after another seems to be one of the past. I’ve heard from numerous professors and others that my generation, our generation, is one of the first to be so adept at “multi tasking” simply due to the fact that we place so much emphasis on time, more specifically, a lack of time.

“The constants in my world are no longer provided by a contiguous home turf” – My brother spent 4 months abroad about a year ago, and my parents would have been a wreck were it not for the internet. AIM and Skype brought my brother, their son, into our home on an almost nightly basis. Both my parents and my brother believed that life felt a lot more like “home” with this almost instant connection at their disposal.

1. This quote reminded me of the very influential anime, Ghost in the Shell: "I become a squishy control node in an extensive and highly integrated machine network." The film says the same, "If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device" (Ghost in the Shell 2). Mitchell seems to question this integration, calling the human being a "spatially extended cyborg." The film takes our author's questioning of the self as a bit in the system further by posing a question I might ask to the class: if we become 'part of the system' in body and mind (as in virtual reality and the commitment of our memory to the internet) where does that leave our souls?

2. Continuing on the note of a multi-dimensional, cross-continent web of networking, I found it frustrating that Mitchell insisted that these connections are "invisible" and that the internet as a whole is invisible. This disregards one aspect which might add to the argument, servers. All of the information for websites are stored in servers, which are physical storehouses. If these are lost are our cyber bodies and minds lost with them?

3. It is interesting to note how social connectedness thrives even through the internet and wireless networks, where we cannot see those around us. Mitchell states that we thrive on 'feedback', and if the direct line of sight is lost, we lose the 'feedback loop'. How does this convert to the internet? We receive feedback from our actions but we do not see the continuous loop as we connect with others in the web. As Mitchell states, the difference between the connections is nothing and yet we accept the results without thinking. As human beings we develop the language that connects us, without body language or physical feedback.

1) Mitchell leads into his discussion of Me++ with the idea of city boundaries, and how that paradigm is being replaced by networks within cities as a representation of cities. How do both of these paradigms reflect our personal, individual ideas of self (from impregnable fortress to share-able data) and how does emerging cybercultural technology reflect a changing idea of self?

2) How do the advances in technology Mitchell discusses dehumanize the individual person, and how do they superhumanize him/her? (I realize this is subjective, but that's the point, ain't it? :) )

3) Given that technology already grants the individual potentially eternal memory, what do you think of that potential coupled with the likely potential for indefinite life, whether that be through re-downloaded consciousness or some kind of cryogenic freezing scheme? Could individuals with the willingness to live for centuries become forces that shape coming human history?

Ajai Raj

1. I was intreagued that, for some, the line between human and machine has become so blurry. While machines can surely emulate human actions, I hold that certain fassets of humanity are irreplacable.

2. On page 21, there is talk of "tending a distant garden." Global communication now allows us such luxuries (if you will). What is the benefit of most of these aiding vehicles? We win time. Time and rest. It seems that our natural inclination is to simplify everything, and this goes completely against the universal law of inertia.

3. Page 14 refers to quantum computing. I just had a basic question about this- does this concept mean that the quantum logic itself will create additional technologies as needed? Does this eliminate the need for human thinking?

-Hallie

1) While studying Globalization in a Sociology class, we never discussed how technology has changed the world. The theme I picked up on was the inter-connectivity that technology creates. Global markets, trade, and travel wasn't possible to our distant relatives, but opportunities have changed. Although technology allows for a greater diversity in culture, it also brings terrorism, viruses and other consequenses.

2) It is interesting to look at ourselves as parts of indirect networks or channels. We are apart of the respiratory system, the disposal system, and the food chain. We go through our everyday lives without realizing we are contributing to these networks. We also don't realize how pervasive technology is in our every action. Trying to imagine our day without technology is almost impossible. With the scare of the Y2K, it became obvious how dependent we are on technology.

3) With Sept. 11th, surveillance has become a debated topic. Even though Foucault didn't experience the advances in technology, his concept of the Panopticon show how he knew new structures and technology will be created that will document our every move. Mitchell points out that we often behave even though sometimes we aren't being watched. Foucault's Panopticon exemplifies how discipline is created in present society. People behave for fear of punishment. New technology that monitors or that we think is monitoring us forces us to comply to society's rules.

- Mackenzie

1) While the world has always had a heartbeat of its own, one would think that technology, such a seemingly heartless thing, would not have one. However, technology does have its own internal tick, and it continues to quicken as time passes.

2) Time, once thought a linear thing, has become more weblike in structure. Even then, time is not always continuous anymore either; it seems that the nature of time may have developed limbo periods.

3) Because technology allows human interactions over long distances, mankind is no longer bound to interact with only those living nearby. These relationships are often impersonal and physically distant, a big change from those of ages past.

~Grace

1. Technology has allowed many networks and relationships to be easily created among people around the world, yet these networks are less personal and less intimate.
2. It's interesting how technology has made time seem almost obsolete. Things no longer HAVE to be done in a sequential order, as things can be done parallel to each other. It is easier for tasks to be completed faster.
3. Mitchell points to our increasing reliability on stored information to help us remember information which we have forgotten, or perform tasks which we do not want to spend as much brain power on. Where will this increasing reliability on stored information lead us?

Ryan

1) Mitchell sees technology as being connected or interwoven with the biology of humans. It seems as if humans cannot detach themselves or escape the impacts of technology.
2) It is interesting that although networks open up the possibility for connecting individuals around the world, at the same time, there is a higher risk of surveillance.
3) As humans come to rely more and more on technology and this has decreased the "borders" between different communities, on the other hand, there seems to be an increase in the barriers between individuals as there has been a decrease in interpersonal communication and face-to-face contacts.