SLOTHMUD

mob area: AH, Sakura Garden

mob name: Ivan

mob look: QGNCnYTFEJREM

mob desc: As I type these words, my mp3 player is thpunimg out a beat, my cell phone vibrates an alert—**one new message**—and my work-related Outlook email chimes to me. I glance over to read the subject line: “New Tech Tidbit Available: ‘NanoRadio Device Aims to Improve Everything from Cell Phones to Medical Diagnostics.’” The author describes the NanoRadio energetically: “You won’t believe the latest technology coming out of the University of California, Berkeley!” The NanoRadio is a tiny radio that “measures one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair.” All it needs is a battery and earphones. What catches my attention is the author’s speculation about “the possibility that it could be integrated into radio-controlled mechanisms small enough to patrol a human’s bloodstream and time-release medication.” With developments such as these, it hasn’t hard to imagine that the mobile technology that surrounds us could one day TRULY be a matter of life and death. I am reminded of a question Howard Rheingold asks: “Which characterizations of the flesh should and could be sequestered from the attractions and colonizations of technique?” (202). Amidst all his reporting on the breakthroughs and benefits of technology, Rheingold ultimately draws a line and peers “into the shadows” (xxi). He presents evidence, primarily in the last chapter of his book, that there is a dark threat to advancements in the wireless technologies on which smart mobs depend. Dependence is a theme in this book—I constantly noticed ways that the people Rheingold interviewed or researched utterly depended on technology (Rheingold uses the more specific phrase “pervasive computing technologies” [xiii]). Rheingold’s enthusiastic, editorial tone grows more and more cautionary in the final chapter. As he writes: “I begin this concluding chapter with critical perspectives on smart mobs” (184). I feel quite relieved to have a break from mostly reportorial observations, histories, and interpretations.In the last chapter, Rheingold aptly summarizes Elluls’s analysis of technique vs. spontaneous activity, and from this foundation, Rheingold writes that “technique’s relentless quantification, mechanization, and digitization of everything” has the potential to threaten human dignity and the quality of human life in general (199). Indeed, what aspect of our lives is unregulated? Those who turn their backs on technology are not only at a disadvantage, but they are viewed as dolts and behind-the-timers (think John McCain, who referred to himself as computer illiterate during the Republican primary). Rheingold shows that there exists a social dependence (ability to make friends, ask people out on dates), practical dependence (cell phone as remote control for the world), and even physical dependence (Steve Mann and other Cyborgs) on pervasive computing technologies. I wonder if our ability to think critically will also come to depend on such technologies, most of which accompany us 24 hours a day.To use Rheingold’s phrase, “opinion-shaping machinery” is becoming something we depend on for information, and even for knowledge and interpretation. We already depend on technology for information. I am a classic example, since I use the Internet to look up information everyday. However, if we begin to rely on technology as a substitute for critical thinking—assuming something like “Why should I think critically about this issue? Certainly someone somewhere has already had the same thought, so I can just reference that”—then I fear pervasive computing technologies could become a matter of life and death on a level beyond the physical. I mean the level of the individual, un-swarmed, un-mobbed, innovative mind.

comments: As I type these words, my mp3 player is thpunimg out a beat, my cell phone vibrates an alert—**one new message**—and my work-related Outlook email chimes to me. I glance over to read the subject line: “New Tech Tidbit Available: ‘NanoRadio Device Aims to Improve Everything from Cell Phones to Medical Diagnostics.’” The author describes the NanoRadio energetically: “You won’t believe the latest technology coming out of the University of California, Berkeley!” The NanoRadio is a tiny radio that “measures one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair.” All it needs is a battery and earphones. What catches my attention is the author’s speculation about “the possibility that it could be integrated into radio-controlled mechanisms small enough to patrol a human’s bloodstream and time-release medication.” With developments such as these, it hasn’t hard to imagine that the mobile technology that surrounds us could one day TRULY be a matter of life and death. I am reminded of a question Howard Rheingold asks: “Which characterizations of the flesh should and could be sequestered from the attractions and colonizations of technique?” (202). Amidst all his reporting on the breakthroughs and benefits of technology, Rheingold ultimately draws a line and peers “into the shadows” (xxi). He presents evidence, primarily in the last chapter of his book, that there is a dark threat to advancements in the wireless technologies on which smart mobs depend. Dependence is a theme in this book—I constantly noticed ways that the people Rheingold interviewed or researched utterly depended on technology (Rheingold uses the more specific phrase “pervasive computing technologies” [xiii]). Rheingold’s enthusiastic, editorial tone grows more and more cautionary in the final chapter. As he writes: “I begin this concluding chapter with critical perspectives on smart mobs” (184). I feel quite relieved to have a break from mostly reportorial observations, histories, and interpretations.In the last chapter, Rheingold aptly summarizes Elluls’s analysis of technique vs. spontaneous activity, and from this foundation, Rheingold writes that “technique’s relentless quantification, mechanization, and digitization of everything” has the potential to threaten human dignity and the quality of human life in general (199). Indeed, what aspect of our lives is unregulated? Those who turn their backs on technology are not only at a disadvantage, but they are viewed as dolts and behind-the-timers (think John McCain, who referred to himself as computer illiterate during the Republican primary). Rheingold shows that there exists a social dependence (ability to make friends, ask people out on dates), practical dependence (cell phone as remote control for the world), and even physical dependence (Steve Mann and other Cyborgs) on pervasive computing technologies. I wonder if our ability to think critically will also come to depend on such technologies, most of which accompany us 24 hours a day.To use Rheingold’s phrase, “opinion-shaping machinery” is becoming something we depend on for information, and even for knowledge and interpretation. We already depend on technology for information. I am a classic example, since I use the Internet to look up information everyday. However, if we begin to rely on technology as a substitute for critical thinking—assuming something like “Why should I think critically about this issue? Certainly someone somewhere has already had the same thought, so I can just reference that”—then I fear pervasive computing technologies could become a matter of life and death on a level beyond the physical. I mean the level of the individual, un-swarmed, un-mobbed, innovative mind.

items found:
add item
added: by ZXRxgKeWQGR , 31.05.2012 13:26 MSK

mob area:	AH, Sakura Garden
mob name:	Ivan
mob look:	QGNCnYTFEJREM
mob desc:	As I type these words, my mp3 player is thpunimg out a beat, my cell phone vibrates an alert—one new message—and my work-related Outlook email chimes to me. I glance over to read the subject line: “New Tech Tidbit Available: ‘NanoRadio Device Aims to Improve Everything from Cell Phones to Medical Diagnostics.’” The author describes the NanoRadio energetically: “You won’t believe the latest technology coming out of the University of California, Berkeley!” The NanoRadio is a tiny radio that “measures one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair.” All it needs is a battery and earphones. What catches my attention is the author’s speculation about “the possibility that it could be integrated into radio-controlled mechanisms small enough to patrol a human’s bloodstream and time-release medication.” With developments such as these, it hasn’t hard to imagine that the mobile technology that surrounds us could one day TRULY be a matter of life and death. I am reminded of a question Howard Rheingold asks: “Which characterizations of the flesh should and could be sequestered from the attractions and colonizations of technique?” (202). Amidst all his reporting on the breakthroughs and benefits of technology, Rheingold ultimately draws a line and peers “into the shadows” (xxi). He presents evidence, primarily in the last chapter of his book, that there is a dark threat to advancements in the wireless technologies on which smart mobs depend. Dependence is a theme in this book—I constantly noticed ways that the people Rheingold interviewed or researched utterly depended on technology (Rheingold uses the more specific phrase “pervasive computing technologies” [xiii]). Rheingold’s enthusiastic, editorial tone grows more and more cautionary in the final chapter. As he writes: “I begin this concluding chapter with critical perspectives on smart mobs” (184). I feel quite relieved to have a break from mostly reportorial observations, histories, and interpretations.In the last chapter, Rheingold aptly summarizes Elluls’s analysis of technique vs. spontaneous activity, and from this foundation, Rheingold writes that “technique’s relentless quantification, mechanization, and digitization of everything” has the potential to threaten human dignity and the quality of human life in general (199). Indeed, what aspect of our lives is unregulated? Those who turn their backs on technology are not only at a disadvantage, but they are viewed as dolts and behind-the-timers (think John McCain, who referred to himself as computer illiterate during the Republican primary). Rheingold shows that there exists a social dependence (ability to make friends, ask people out on dates), practical dependence (cell phone as remote control for the world), and even physical dependence (Steve Mann and other Cyborgs) on pervasive computing technologies. I wonder if our ability to think critically will also come to depend on such technologies, most of which accompany us 24 hours a day.To use Rheingold’s phrase, “opinion-shaping machinery” is becoming something we depend on for information, and even for knowledge and interpretation. We already depend on technology for information. I am a classic example, since I use the Internet to look up information everyday. However, if we begin to rely on technology as a substitute for critical thinking—assuming something like “Why should I think critically about this issue? Certainly someone somewhere has already had the same thought, so I can just reference that”—then I fear pervasive computing technologies could become a matter of life and death on a level beyond the physical. I mean the level of the individual, un-swarmed, un-mobbed, innovative mind.
comments:	As I type these words, my mp3 player is thpunimg out a beat, my cell phone vibrates an alert—one new message—and my work-related Outlook email chimes to me. I glance over to read the subject line: “New Tech Tidbit Available: ‘NanoRadio Device Aims to Improve Everything from Cell Phones to Medical Diagnostics.’” The author describes the NanoRadio energetically: “You won’t believe the latest technology coming out of the University of California, Berkeley!” The NanoRadio is a tiny radio that “measures one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair.” All it needs is a battery and earphones. What catches my attention is the author’s speculation about “the possibility that it could be integrated into radio-controlled mechanisms small enough to patrol a human’s bloodstream and time-release medication.” With developments such as these, it hasn’t hard to imagine that the mobile technology that surrounds us could one day TRULY be a matter of life and death. I am reminded of a question Howard Rheingold asks: “Which characterizations of the flesh should and could be sequestered from the attractions and colonizations of technique?” (202). Amidst all his reporting on the breakthroughs and benefits of technology, Rheingold ultimately draws a line and peers “into the shadows” (xxi). He presents evidence, primarily in the last chapter of his book, that there is a dark threat to advancements in the wireless technologies on which smart mobs depend. Dependence is a theme in this book—I constantly noticed ways that the people Rheingold interviewed or researched utterly depended on technology (Rheingold uses the more specific phrase “pervasive computing technologies” [xiii]). Rheingold’s enthusiastic, editorial tone grows more and more cautionary in the final chapter. As he writes: “I begin this concluding chapter with critical perspectives on smart mobs” (184). I feel quite relieved to have a break from mostly reportorial observations, histories, and interpretations.In the last chapter, Rheingold aptly summarizes Elluls’s analysis of technique vs. spontaneous activity, and from this foundation, Rheingold writes that “technique’s relentless quantification, mechanization, and digitization of everything” has the potential to threaten human dignity and the quality of human life in general (199). Indeed, what aspect of our lives is unregulated? Those who turn their backs on technology are not only at a disadvantage, but they are viewed as dolts and behind-the-timers (think John McCain, who referred to himself as computer illiterate during the Republican primary). Rheingold shows that there exists a social dependence (ability to make friends, ask people out on dates), practical dependence (cell phone as remote control for the world), and even physical dependence (Steve Mann and other Cyborgs) on pervasive computing technologies. I wonder if our ability to think critically will also come to depend on such technologies, most of which accompany us 24 hours a day.To use Rheingold’s phrase, “opinion-shaping machinery” is becoming something we depend on for information, and even for knowledge and interpretation. We already depend on technology for information. I am a classic example, since I use the Internet to look up information everyday. However, if we begin to rely on technology as a substitute for critical thinking—assuming something like “Why should I think critically about this issue? Certainly someone somewhere has already had the same thought, so I can just reference that”—then I fear pervasive computing technologies could become a matter of life and death on a level beyond the physical. I mean the level of the individual, un-swarmed, un-mobbed, innovative mind.
items found:	add item
added:	by ZXRxgKeWQGR , 31.05.2012 13:26 MSK