Let's talk about McLuhan

It's just as trippy as it looks.

Back in the 60's Marshall McLuhan wrote a book called The Medium is the Massage, about evolving technology and how it would affect society.

McLuhan talks about a lot of different things concerning technology within his book, some of it eerily accurate to today's society, some of it way off base. I want to talk about a page in particular that has not yet proven to be true, but is fast on track to being the future.

"The older, traditional ideas of private, isolated thoughts and actions- the patterns of mechanistic technologies- are very seriously threatened by new methods of instantaneous electric information retrieval, by the electrically computerized dossier bank- that one big gossip column that is unforgiving, unforgettable and from which there is no redemption, no erasure of early "mistakes."" -McLuhan

Also, we had kickin' fashion sense.

 Essentially, what McLuhan is talking about, is the death of anonymity. Chances are, you grew up in the 90's or early 2000's. Do you remember getting on the internet back then? What was it like? Small websites abounded and no one asked you to sign in before you comment. You picked a nickname on the spot and you were good to go!

Today's internet has gone under tremendous change. The internet has undergone a "Walmart effect". That is, the small personally run websites are disappearing, being replaced by huge conglomerates that all network back into one another.

Not even email is safe anymore.

Go on CNN's website, or Time's. If you want to post a comment, what do you have to do? You have to sign in. If you think registering a profile with that site just to make one measly comment is too much work (as I often think it is), they have an easier option. You can sign in with your facebook account.

Try to log onto youtube. You don't have a screen name log in anymore, it has to be through your email. More and more our ability to be anonymous online is disappearing.



I'll leave you with this video of Christopher "Moot" Poole, founder of the imageboard 4chan, discussing his website and the rapidly disappearing anonymity of the internet.

Let's talk about the internet

The internet: the final frontier. A near-infinite virtual space where anything and everything can be found.

This is what Mozilla Firefox browsing the web looks like.

Above: Internet debates

But how is the internet affecting us? There are those among us who claim that the internet is an infernal device lowering our intelligence. And of course, on the internet, where there is one opinion, there is always a second one in complete disagreement.




So who is right? Is it Carr, who tells a charming little anecdote about how he can no longer focus on lengthy articles anymore, or Shirky, who scoffs and says that there will always be fearmongers where new technology rears its head?

In the Blue Corner: Carr
Carr starts his article off with, in this writer's opinion, a completely useless anecdote about his inability to concentrate. He even goes and finds some of his buddies who agree with him "“I can’t read War and Peace  anymore,” he [Bruce Friedman] admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”"

Just what is that proving? I've got a cute anecdote of my own. When a book interests me, I'll devour it. I can still knock out a 900 page novel in a few weeks, if it holds my attention. But when long-winded academic papers crop up, is it really so surprising many people skim them?

Thankfully, that's not the end of Carr's article. He goes on to very clearly explain that anecdotes are no basis for an argument (thank goodness, or I might have thrown something).

Let me summarize the rest of the article for you, because honestly, it's really long and pretty boring.

Suddenly the term "Google Android" takes an ominous turn.

1. Technology changes how we think and how our brain works
2. The internet in particular, not only does this, but also absorbs older technology (ie, maps, phones, televisions) and molds them into its own image.
3. Google wants to turn all our brains into super-efficient computers
4. This kind of worrying has happened with just about every major technological advancement (specifically citing the invention of written word, and the invention of the printing press).
5. Yes, you should be skeptical of my [Carr's] skepticism, but I'm still going to be skeptical.



In the Red Corner: Shirky
Shirky starts off by acknowledging all the doomsday prophecies concerning technologies. "these amateurs [of media] produce endless streams of mediocrity, eroding cultural norms about quality and acceptability, and leading to increasingly alarmed predictions of incipient chaos and intellectual collapse".

However, right off the bat, Shirky comes out swinging. He states that this kind of hysteria happens every time something new appears (a phenomena that even Carr agrees with). 

The rest of his article can be summed up very succinctly: With the expansion of any new type of media, there is always an immediate explosion of low-brow trash that seemingly heralds the end of civilization. However, this is always followed by a growth of knowledge and art. Before there can be Shakespear, there must be really bad erotic fiction. We just happen to be living in that period of growth and expansion, which explains Justin Beiber.




So Who's Right?
I'm inclined to believe Shirky. History backs him up on this, and why should it be this event that breaks the pattern? The printing press didn't ruin us. Rock n' Roll didn't ruin us. The internet sure as hell won't. Carr admits his worries are based on nearly nothing but his own paranoia ("And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition.").

Even if the internet does affect how are minds work (and I really have no doubt that it does), I don't think this is a bad thing. I believe that one of humankind's strongest attributes is our mind's ability to rewire itself to best serve our needs. Society is heading in this direction. Our minds need to adapt to it.


I'll leave with a quote from Charles Darwin: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.

Let's talk Mac vs PC

It's the eternal battle, are you a Mac? Are you a PC? Which is better?

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/macvspc1.jpg

I used to be pretty hard-core against Macs, but I've mellowed out a bit (I'd like to believe) in recent years. I'd just like to take a second and try to look objectively at both computers.

Let's take a closer look:

The Mac: part of Apple's wildly successful branding operations. Owning a Mac makes you hip, creative, and cool. But what does a Mac actually have over a PC?

1. Branding. As I just mentioned, Apple knows how to create an image. When you buy a Mac, you're buying that image.

2. Hardware. Is Mac hardware particularly better than PC? I don't believe so. Macs use exclusively Apple-made hardware, so when you buy one, you definitely know what you're getting. PCs will get their hardware from whoever can get it made for less though, slashing prices dramatically (more on that later). Are Macs more stable than PCs? Perhaps, but the difference is so small it's negligible.

3. Software. Here's the crux of the matter. When someone says "Mac vs PC", what they really mean is "Leopard OS vs Windows". The Mac OS is a lot more closed off to the user, promoting a "safe" environment for the less computer-savvy. This can prove to be frustrating to those who are used to high levels of customization though. I have heard that the Mac OS is also more "intuitive" to use than Windows. Maybe it is, in theory, but then, cursive is also theoretically faster than print, but because of practice and experience in print, that typically isn't the case. I believe that is the same thing with Leopard vs Windows. Most people have grown up with Windows, so Windows is much more intuitive to them. On a more anecdotal note, it takes me exactly one key to grab a screenshot off my computer. It takes a Mac user at least 3 (which, if my English 103 class freshman year was any indication, the majority of users don't know, and have to look up online).

4. Price. Here's where I come full stop against Macs. They are simply far to expensive for what they offer. Consider this image:

http://www.meh.ro/original/2010_04/meh.ro3856.jpg

 That's nearly five times as expensive to purchase a computer that has exactly the same hardware. It boggles my mind. Not everyone is like me though. Some find it a justifiable cost for what a Mac offers vs what a PC does. As long as they don't think they wasted their money, they didn't.

5. Security.  I can't count the number of times I've heard "Well Macs don't get viruses". This is an image that Apple works very hard to promote. Yet according to this article, Macs are actually less secure than Windows. Are Macs more secure? Yes and no. In terms of actually being able to stop hackers and viruses, Macs are indeed weaker. But because Macs contain such a small share of the overall computer market, there are virtually no hackers or viruses designed to target Macs. Just as an aside, I haven't had a major virus issue on a PC since middle school. I haven't had any viruses/spyware/malware on a PC since probably my Junior/Senior year of high school. Stupid mistakes are what get computers infected. Browse smartly, check for spyware regularly, and you won't have an issue.


Conclusion?
So the final verdict? Which is the superior machine? The answer is neither. Macs are good at some things, PCs are good at other things. If you're not the most tech-savvy person and are afraid of viruses? Maybe a Mac is what you need. Are you a dedicated gamer or looking for a cheaper alternative? You probably want to look in the PC section.

I'll leave with this funny web-comic, because in the end, I'm still a PC.

:)