Kelly

This was a good article looking into the future of how music is obtained. I liked how he talked about how when things become free and easy to obtain it changes its position in economic standing, like the nighttime lighting when it was new poor people used candles and now its a sign of luxury to have candles at the dinner table. I also think he is right about how he describes the music becoming liquid, that anyone with the right software or machines can change any song they want to something that they like better. So music is becoming more personal and I think it will be even more personal in the future as he predicts.

Umberto Eco

It seems to be that Umberto is standing for the side of using technology to promote the existence of books in the future. I like how Eco relates to the new technology used today for skills similar to ones in the past. When writing first came around, it was believed that the skills of memory would degrade because humans would not have to exericse these skills anymore. As writing progressed, it seemed to help advance human skills. This is similar with today's technology; by using tapes, CD's, television, and much more, an individual can learn a large amount in a shorter period of time, compared to reading a book. The points at the end of the article are very logical in their reasoning. Books overcrowd to quickly in shelves, destroy trees valuable to the environment, are very expensive, and are just getting beat out by the new technology. Although basing everything on technology shows difficulty in the future. Umberto explains by using another story, that a person that still knows the multiplication tables in the future could be wanted for far more then the average person due to their ability to function during power shortages.

Robert S. Boynton

Like Boynton, I think that the copyright laws have gotten a little out of control and strict at times. If it involves the Girl Scouts raising the price of Thin Mints to pay expenses for a few campfire songs- where do I sign up for the revolution. I think people are entitled for some form of payment if they provide services such as music, art, literature, scientific findings, etc., but when Donald Trump and Paris Hilton start copyrighting their catch phrases, there as to be some ground rules or leeways to copyrights. I agree with the rights of people to collaborate, sample, and pull from past sources to make something new and different- it's hard to be completely "original." I disagree with Copy Left's idea that the current copyright regulations will cause a stagnation in creativity. They feel that the laws will send us in a time warp, turning us back into talking monkeys. If history has proved anything, very little has stopped man from seeking knowledge and information, whatever the cost. So to cry about paying 99 cents for a song, seems a little childish to me when looking at the big picture. We as American citizens, believe it or not, have the ability to change the governments rules on Copyrighting if we feel this is the work of a tyrant. However, in college right now, I will happily reach into the information cookie jar until I spoil my dinner.

Ohmann

Literacy Technology and Money capital by Ohmann brings to light many new ideas that come along with technology with a strong emphasis on business and capitalists. Ohmann feels that computers haven’t really helped us but helped capitalists monopolize us more effectively with less work. He feels that as a society we think computers are helping us and don’t see what capitalists are doing to make us by there products. I don’t know I totally agree with all of this crap about computers not really helping us and just monopolizing everything because I don’t know where I would be without my computer, I know one thing I wouldn’t be able to do this blog, I also wouldn’t communicate as easily and I am sure businesses wouldn't be as productive. Although in the ending of this article I did feel that he does think that computers are an asset but we don’t know enough about them and there will always be bearers because people will always need help.
In the opening statement he talks about the word literacy and how it wasn’t used in the 19th century because back then they knew who was able to read and write because of the bearer of the social class system. It wasn’t until the idea of educating the lower class that the word literacy was started to be a word that we would hear on a normal basis. Now in the 21st century we think of computer literacy because that is where we are finding more problems with people not able to understand computers. “Understand the software…will be a primary component of literacy in the electronic age.” It may be hard for our generation to understand the technology bearer because we have grown up with it, but many older generations are still having a hard time getting use to this crazy world of computers. All together I found this article like many other articles we have read this quarter to be an interesting look at the way some people view what we do in our normal lives in different ways and thinking out side of the box.

Barlow

This article was about hackers and how they were considered in the authors eyes as "outlaws," but in reality were intellihent young people who wanted to have fun. The media had portrayed these computer hackers as people who were committing crimes that held the same weight as murder and burglary when in all actuality, these were guys of around the age of 18 who were clean cut and only wanted to have the thrill of taking something from the vast internet. The part of the article that truly surprised me was how the Secret Service would go around to these young mens house, guns drawn, and take all their computer equipment as well as any note which were written about computing. The Secret Service would claim that these were being taken for evidence in a case but when no charges were filed against the accused, the equipment was never returned causing the "crackers" a lot of money. The main argument that this written piece brings up: under what circumstances are computers and what is on them considered in the 4th amendment. To my knowledge there is no answer to that question.

Dibbell

Wow...that was a long article, but it was an interesting one. It bring up a lot of questions about the differences between VR rape and RL rape. I know that I am still up in the air to whether I think online rape can be labeled as an actual offense or if people should "toughen up" as some people in this essay said. I think that Cyber Raping should be taken seriously, but in my personal opinion, RL rap is more emotionally and physically damaging. I understand that online rapes can leave serious emotional scars, the same as RL rapes do, but I think it leaves more of an impact when you can see a face and a body that is actually physically doing this brutal act to you.
I also think that the concept of LambdaMOO is one that is somewhat odd to me. People being able to label themselves as anyone they want to and make any type of chat room that they want, even down to the type of wall paper on the walls. Such as Mr. Bungle, who described himself as a creepy clown that sent offensive and wrong messages to others in this network. Why would someone want that type of personality to be portrayed on the internet? Me personally, I like the RL word compared to the VR world. It is more tangible and something I can relate to more than a computer.

Stone

I found this article to be very interesting. The author focused on one specific story of a psychiatrist who created an online persona that seemed completely different from his own personality. He also talks about how in society there seems to be a true identity that is attached with the physical presence of someone. Now i obviously agree with the fact that we have a true identity, but sometimes it is hard to know what exactly it is. In the Cross Dressing Psychiatrists case, I feel that Julie was part of his true identity. I cant believe that he could have made her up and become so involved just for the sake of talking to people. I think it was much deeper than that. I beleive that Julie symbolized something he wanted to be in a way but was too afraid to show that in person. He used the screen name as a disguise to let the other personality out and it worked. I think that many people probably do this today. Maybe not everyone goes to the extent that Lewin went to but Im sure that some people show a side of themselves online that people dont get to see in person.