I believe I was in shock for a few days after I read the first chapter of The World is Flat. I knew about most of what Friedman was talking about, I was aware of the digital revolution and India being a second Silicone Valley, but the way he put everything together to back up his hypothesis was brilliant. The world is flat. We spent so many years to discover that the world is round and make everybody believe that the world is round, to say now that the world is flat could not hold more truth. Prior to the enlightenment of Friedman, I had misunderstood the flat world as western culture infiltrating other cultures and countries. At the base line that is what it is, however it is so much more than that. So far, and some may argue, but after reading the flatteners, it seems that rather than technology "enslaving" other countries, it is empowering them. The flatteners are allowing different markets to compete at the same level. Digital is allowing the global borders to fall down and creating one currency. Not that I believe in outsourcing, however, call me an idelaist, having the jet blue agents and customer support work out of their homes, is kind of a nice idea. I would love to work from home. Yeah its less overhead for the company and they are most;y doing it to cut corners, but the employees seemed happy, the customers seem happy. Isn't that a win/win situation?

The flatteners that we got were Google and wireless. Google is the highest form of empowerment. As Friedman said, all you need to know how to do is type. It has turned 75 year old women into educated consumers, and 10 year old boys into researchers. It has made my life easier and I feel more informed about making a decision, any decision. An wireless. wireless is amazing, just for the sheer fact that I can do everything I need to do for this class, work, in my bed. I mean isn't that a great invention?

The effects of computing power on communication. I found it interesting about the first radio stations were all "pirate" radio, or "serious" amateurs that were essentially playing their own music and talking about what they wanted to talk about. Reminds me of something else that we have today.

Through the telegraph, radio, television, I think the world opened up to many people. What was once not thought about or just left to the imagination could now be seen. At the same time TV curbed the line of reality into illusion.

Over time and the evolution of technology applying computing power to communication makes communicating faster. The example that was given about th 1755 earthquake in Lisbon and how no one knew about it for months, the author stated that of the happened to day within seconds a blanket of electronic media would cover most of the world. And well, we saw this with the Tsunami, something that happpened clear across the globe and we knew about instantaneously. Prior to the web, there was this affect with TV, and prior to TV with radio, and prior to radio, the telegraph.

THe effects of computing power on communication. I found it interesting about the first radio stations were all "pirate" radio, or "serious" amateurs that were essentially playing their own music and talking about what they wanted to talk about. Reminds me of something else that we have today.

Through the telegraph, radio, television, I think the world opened up to many people. What was once not thought about or just left to the imagination could now be seen. At the same time TV curbed the line of reality into illusion.

Over time and the evolution of technology applying computing power to communication makes things faster. The example that was given about th 1755 earthquake in Lisbon and how no one knew about it for months, the author stated that of the happened to day within seconds a blanket of electronic media would cover most of the world. And well, we saw this with the Tsunami, something that happpened clear across the globe and we knew about instantaneously. Prior to the web, there was this affect with TV, and prior to TV with radio, and prior to radio, the telegraph.

I didn't realize that the Benedictine Monks invented the mechanical clock to better track their daily prayers. I wonder what they would thing of society today the way the clock is used, basically to make more money. An the printing press was pushed forward by the superveniing necessity to spread the word of God. I find it interesting that our present state of technology was rooted due to God.

I think technologiues are adopted because their is an ovrewhelming need , in the past I think this need came from whoever was governing society. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the developed world was in an Oligarchy. So if the church could deem a supervening social necessity for the mechanical clock than it would probably be adopted. A couple of centuries later, there was Guternberg with a want to spread the Bible and he created the printing press, also the first form of Mass Media communication.

In contrast to the 12th-15th centuries, we are now in a capitalistic society and most of the technologies that are developed are driven by time saving and money making. Cell phones, PCs, PDAs, originally developed for businesses, then adopted by the mainstream.

In Winston's CH 2 AND 3 HE DESCRIBES WHY IT TOOK SO LONG FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE TELEPHONE. No one thought it was important to hear your voice over the line. THey had the capability to do wire transfers of money, so the banks and Western Union were happy, and you could now send messages through the wire. THere was no supervening social necessity for you to hear a voice. Also there were problems getting the patent due to western Union.

It seems that technology get adopted when its easy to use, affordable, and its not infringing on the technology of another item.

Wow. Huge release by Mac. IPod Video. So I am doing my research on individualized media and a part of my "crystal balling" was to forsee that everyone would have a PDA that dowloads video and well iPod just beat it to it. It is here right now. And Apple was the first.

This will revolutionize programming. I believe more than cell phone programming.
I will wait to speculate until after I do my research. I think this provides steam to continue with time shifting topic and put it into context at what is going on right now.

Side note of irony, in 1984 Apple proeduced a commercial that made fun of the book 1984. But now iPod is in essence turning to be like Big Brother. This will be a Pod world soon. Bad joke, I know... its early yet. http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html

Another side note but it does involve Apple... and a word of advice if you are a Final Cut Pro User do not rely on an Autosave Vault File! The will rename your files and make it a pain in the *%$!@@!!!! to rebuild it. And do not transport a Lacie Big Disk. Mine just failed. Luckily, I backed up onto a CD.

So all of modern communication technology came from rubbing amber and a Leydon Jar? Amazing. Also amazing that experiments began in the mid 1600's but a working product didn't come into fruition until the mid 1800's with much skeptism. It seems that technology took longer "to create" at the beginning and since then has become produced at a quicker pace. According to Winston, the telegraph is monumental because so many people were working on inventing the same product simultaneously.

And after that the Supervening Social Necessity became so apparent for all these products to flow. For both Bell and Gray to file for a patent on the same day in 1876 for an electronic speaking phone I think is unbelieveable. It also sets the scene for what is going on today with Skype, that all the industries are on their toes figuring out what to develope next.

I guess it all makes sense looking back through history how technology evolved and that social need is pushing technology forward.

Only today social need is intercepted with marketing and the critical mass doesn't know what they need because they are being told what they need.

I never realized how interelated social behaviors are to the adaptation of new technology. How many factors of critical mass and advertising are connected to whether or not I have a PC on the internet in my home. This feels a little to me like Big Brother and it isn't an individual decision to buy an MP3 player, that there is Government, Advertisers and peer pressure involved, without us, the consumer even aware of it!

This paper is very similar to my research paper on the evolution of individualized or selective media (TiVo, Cable On Demand and iFilm) and how it has affected media content creation. I am looking into what will be the next wave of media creation, how will advertising evolve if no one watches commercials. How will TV shows evolve without the time constraint of 21 or 52 minutes?

Back to the paper:
"Our concern is more with the human and social impacts than the technology itself". Williams, Stover and Grant state in their paper. I find this very interesting in relation to how technology is what it is today. I like the model of "uses and gratification" this is all very obvious, and something that I just never realized. If something fits into the social structure and can find good uses for it, such as e-mail, then it adapts. Its funny to see predictions that do not always comethrough because another piece of technology beat it to it. "An application of Markus' (1987) theory of critical mass suggests that fax machines may one day be as common as telephones in our homes." I guess this probably would have been true had email not beat the fax machine to it.

I kind of would like to rebel aginst this "critical mass". What if I don't want to buy an iPod or use email at work. Well on one hand I can get by without an iPod -for now- but I guess I would have to use email at work or else I would probably get fired or annoy a lot of coworkers. And well the more I think of it, its easier to use email than it is to call or talk to someone face to face. Which is another reason that technology adapts.

Disruptive technology. To some that is all technology. As I was reading the social paper and they were saying that in order for communication technology to work you need two ends to it. A fax machine to communicate with another fax machine, I was thinking about Skype and why more people aren't using it. And well I'm pretty "techy" and I haven't the slightest idea of how to get my voice across my computer. It would be great to talk my grandmother in Montreal for free over the internet, but well she doesn't have a computer.

So as far as being a disruptive technology I can see why the big companies are jumping in the way of this being further developed, but I don't think it will become mainstream anytime soon. But maybe in five years, when grandma gets a PDA.

But as far as Skype and Friedman's Flat world are concerned the two go hand in hand. Skype is definitely furthering the idea of flat by giving out international numbers and having people able to have a phone number in essentially any country. Wow we'd have absolutely no idea where any company is.

This is my blog, results to follow.