Abstract of the Dissertation The Use of Wiki to Support Dispersed n-collaborator Dialogue: A Design Theory for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue by John C. Stager Claremont Graduate University: 2008 This
dissertation
is
a
proof-of-concept
development
of
a
collaborative virtual space based on the Dialogue of David Bohm. Dialogue searches for the truth. Bohm believes this happens in non-goaloriented collaborative communication. Bohm’s dialogue is not related to goal-seeking since that forces limitations on the process; however, this research is conducted to be applicable to both non-goal-based and goalbased collaboration. Bohmian dialogues have occurred as face-to-face meetings of people. Dispersed groups could benefit from the use of dialogues. This research is based on the essential constructs presented by Bohm (kernel theory) but is extended to resolve the geographical and temporal constraints inherent in Bohm’s ideal. The ability to engage in a Bohmian dialogue with anyone that has access to the Internet is possible. The technology is robust enough to support this activity with the depth and breadth that is required in the Bohmian scheme. However, this study is
not about outcomes from the dialogue, but rather about the process of creating a virtual space in which a dialogue can exist and flourish. No suitable theory exists for the class of information system that is defined as a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
Therefore, this dissertation
presents the design theory (after Walls, Widmeyer, and El Sawy, 1992) for the class of information system known as a dispersed Bohmian dialogue that stays true to the ideal that Bohm proffered whilst removing the constraints inherent in the face-to-face Bohmian dialogue.
This
design theory is presented as a set of guidelines and design and development
principles
that
present
the
generalized
information
necessary for the construction and evaluation of a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. The
design
theory
identifies
nine
testable
hypotheses.
An
instantiation (artifact) of the design theory was built using generally available wiki technology.
The instantiation was evaluated through the
lens of the nine testable hypotheses using observation, ethnographic methods, textual analysis, and a post hoc survey of the participants. The results of this analysis supported all nine of the testable hypotheses. There was evidence to support the additional question, “did a Bohmian dialogue take place?”
Dedication
To Joann, “love of my life, fate should have made you a gentleman’s wife.”*
For knowing that I could do this when I stopped believing.
I can honestly say that nobody would be holding this if you were not in my life.
Thank you.
*
McDill , Bob. (1972) Amanda. Ranger Bob Music, ASCAP / PolyGram Int, ASCAP.
Acknowledgments First, I must thank Dr. Terry Ryan, my dissertation committee chair, my mentor, my friend.
I have read many books on the
development and construction of a dissertation. They all say that the author of a dissertation and his or her chair remain friends for life; I pray that this is so. Even though I was firmly convinced that I wanted Terry as my chair from one of the first IS360 class sessions, I grew to appreciate his sage advice, friendship, and insight.
However, my
feelings for Terry became unshakable with one spontaneous act of ahimsa1 by him. We were walking down College Avenue to lunch. He stopped, bent over, and turned over a roach that was inverted on the sidewalk then proceeded to continue walking. Res ipsa loquitor. Dr. Lorne Olfman, who was Dean of the School for my time there did not need to be on one more doctoral committee; but he did without hesitation.
Lorne sought the best out of me and I suspect
everyone that passed through the School but, by not accepting anything that could be done better, I became better. This dissertation is a better work and well written because of Lorne and I thank him for ensuring that I have a work of which I can be proud.
He is truly a
friend, a world-class researcher, and an excellent teacher.
1
Sanskrit term meaning non-violence. Also, the act of not harming in Hinduism, Janism, and (less formally) Buddhism (Tahtinen, 1976, pp. 131-133).
vi
Dr. Tom Horan happened to teach my proposal writing class. He had no idea what a Bohmian dialogue was when we started that class but by the end he knew, I knew, and he provided insight into the dissertation proposal and into aspects of the research especially social informatics. He was not on my committee through the proposal and for some time afterward; but, when a member couldn’t continue, he stepped in to serve on my committee.
For this I cannot thank him
enough. The development of the dissertation proposal was greatly helped by a number of individuals.
Dr. Melissa Coburn of Scripps College
served on my dissertation committee and saw me through the proposal defense. She could unfortunately not continue as a member. Her help in the development of the proposal made it viable and therefore to a successful dissertation. I thank her for her help in this. Two others provided support for the development of my dissertation proposal.
They did this out of kindness and generosity
and for what I can only guess was support of education and research. This would be extraordinary for anyone to do, but for Dr. Bob Bostrom of The University of Georgia, Terry College of Business and Dr. John Seely Brown (known by many as “JSB”) former Chief Scientist of Xerox Corporation and the Director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) it
vii
was, for me, a great honor that they took their time to help me. I am humbled by their act of kindness and thankful for their aid. Others provided support for this dissertation by giving me various sparks or specific knowledge. I appreciate the time that Ward Cunningham (inventor of the wiki) spent with me at Claremont discussing my thoughts and ideas for the wiki. I was surprised by his surprise that there were researchers that were looking for unique ways to utilize his ideas.
That spark helped me move forward.
Sara
Roberts of the California Institute of the Arts became interested in this dissertation and some related research but I thank her most for suggesting Vonnegut’s idea of a karass.
This provided a different way
of thinking about my work. Without the kindness and support through emails from Dr. Shirley Gregor of the Australian National University, I would not have the understanding of design theories and their construction.
Ken Tyler of Seedwiki.com helped with providing the
base software that I used to construct the wiki and Bohmian dialogue but Ken also helped me to understand the way people collaborate using wikis. A reference he provided helped me understand that, what I began thinking was a problem, thankfully, was not. The late Dr. Valeen Tippetts Avery of Northern Arizona University served as a role model (as a late blooming PhD student) and a friend who convinced me that I could write even though a freshman
viii
composition instructor told me otherwise.
Truitt Allen a great friend
who read this thing many times with a keen eye and a great deal of IT knowledge. This is a better dissertation because of him. I thank and owe him a great deal. Dr. Rich Greene or Northern Illinois University and Dr. James B. Pick of the University of Redlands showed me that I could do this. They encouraged me enough as the advisors for my MA thesis that I thought I could and should continue my education.
I
guess they were correct and I am forever in their debt. Even though not actively involved, some people were interested, encouraging, and my friends through the process. Even though I will miss identifying some, they are included here. Members of my cohort: Dr. Murali Raman, Dr. Tarun Abhichandani, Dr. Bill Bryant, Michael Leih, Dr. Wayne Smith, Mona Dhillon, Farnaz Piepkorn, and Dr. Paul Witman. Faculty members that were instrumental in getting me prepared: Dr. Samir Chatterjee, Dr. Gondy Leroy, Dr. Art Denzau, Dr. Conrad Shayo, and Dr. Frank Lin. Others that belong to this list are: Dr. Charles Elledge, John Turner, David Hardy, Fred Wood, Pauline Sorensen, Ron and Joan Boyd, Ruth Crilly, Darlene DeVries, Judy Stuart, Alice Burke, Dawn Bestafka, and Nancy Vance. Nobody could do what is necessary to produce a dissertation without the support and love of his or her family. I am no exception. My parents, John and Lillian Stager, thought I could do this even
ix
though I had doubts.
I did not understand exactly how proud they
were of me and this work until I talked to their friends. What they do not know is the extent of my pride for them.
My daughters Jessica
and Cassidy and husbands Tyler Miller and David Boyd were supportive and somewhat managerial in prodding me to finish.
I am also very
proud of them. When they get their copies, I hope they realize their mistake in asking, “aren’t you done with that paper [sic] yet?”
My
wife, Joanne, read this dissertation more than any other person, including me.
She edited it many times before anyone else saw it.
This is her work too. I love her more than I can say and there are no words to convey my gratitude to her for her love, help, and support in the most difficult work I have ever completed. Without her this would not exist. My grandfather, Alois Steger, came to the United States in 1923 with $40 in his pocket. He landed at Ellis Island where they changed his name to Louis Stager.
He and his wife, Jolan and my other
grandparents, Charles and Edith Roslan, paved the way. I am the first in their families to complete a PhD. Unlike justice, a dream delayed is not necessarily a dream denied. Thank you. Finally, my committee allowed me to defend this dissertation from my car in an antique store parking lot in Des Moines, Iowa while I was on my way to see my parents. My defense was successful. My
x
father died two weeks later. He got to call me Doctor and it brought a smile to his face that I will never forget. I will also never forget the kindness of Terry, Lorne, and Tom to allow this departure from the norm. Those three are gentlemen and scholars. I will never be able to express my thanks for everything they did.
xi
Preface Writing a dissertation is a metaphysical act, or at least part of it is. People want to know, in a very few words, what is it about, as one would ask about a new novel or movie. For this, it has sufficed to say, collaboration; but it is more than that. The following two passages from two distinctly different texts give more insight than I can in as many words. Wolverine asked, “If truth is essentially wordless, why do we usually talk so much at these meetings?” Woodpecker said, “Maybe we should listen to the silence between the words.”1 There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.2 This dissertation supports and seeks the listening of the silence and the infinite game.
1
Aitken, Robert. (2002). Zen Master Raven: Sayings and Doings of a Wise Bird. Boston: Tuttle Publishing, p. 171. 2 Carse, James P. (1986). Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. New York: Ballantine Books, p. 3.
xii
Chapter 1 – Introduction There are many problems in the world.
We see a debate on a
climate crisis that focuses on whether it is a crisis or if an actionable problem even exists.
Both sides quote the same studies with widely
different interpretations.
In a debate each side argues to win over the
other side to its way of thinking. As such, there is never any resolution unless one side gives in and agrees with the other. There is normally no middle ground. There is no discussion on commonalities. The climate debate is one of the many problems that face our future. Some of the fundamental problems we are dealing with relate to the religious beliefs of the people involved. The post-9/11 world has seen a rise in anti-Islamic thought and action and the countering, antiAmericanism. There appears to be a rather widely-held belief that these two are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. They are not. We see individuals pushing various agendas and people willing to follow. The researcher has personally received mass emailed hyperbolic criticisms that under minimal scrutiny were found to be false. The problem and the solution are the same, communication; with clear, direct, and unbiased (electronic) communication, we might be able to alleviate some of these problems and future challenges (Elgin, 1989, p. 26).
2 The human family confronts unprecedented challenges to its future, and whether we humans are soon overwhelmed or transformed will depend on our ability to communicate. Virtually all of today's problems are, at their core, communications problems. Only a new level of shared communication will enable us to build a workable and meaningful future - but we cannot coordinate our actions in building that future without mass communication at a scale equal to the challenges we face. We can act locally, but we must communicate regionally, nationally and globally. Alexis de Tocqueville said a century and a half ago that the power of a newspaper in a democracy is to put a single idea in 10,000 minds all at the same time. Electronic communication can introduce an idea to a hundred million or even several billion minds simultaneously. Communication is not, therefore, "just another issue." It is the basis for understanding and responding to all issues. Our choice is simple - communication or catastrophe. But if communication is the problem, why is it possible that it can also repair some of the damage? Will communication not just make our problems worse? The type of communication is as important as the communication. Surowiecki (2005) along with Maloney and Multherin (1998) show us that “all of us together are smarter than all of us apart.” We can come together even though it appears on first glance that more separates us than unites us as happened to the Quincy Library Group regarding the forest land in northern California (Terhune & Terhune, 1998). At first they had little in common beyond their mutual belief that U.S. Forest Service management has failed both the environment and local communities. Gradually they developed a plan to replace clearcutting on national forests with single-tree and group-selection logging. Most of the
3 felled trees would be sent to local mills under Sustained Yield Unit legislation designed to protect both direct and indirect timber-dependent jobs. The plan also places strict limits on activities near streams, and it does not intrude on around 500,000 roadless acres environmentalists have battled to protect (Little, 1995). How can we tap this “wisdom of crowds” (Surowiecki, 2005)? We can utilize a special type of communication that is different from the traditional goal-driven methods of debate or negotiation. Both of these types of communication are useful but not in this context.
What is
required is a type of communication that allows for the free exchange of ideas, and also allows people to explore all of the facets of the issue without attempting to persuade the others. This communication requires more self-examination than examination of others. This communication method is dialogue. Background During the past few decades, modern technology, with radio, television, air travel and satellites has woven a network of communications which puts each part of the world into almost instant contact with all the other parts. Yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there is, at every moment, a general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale (Bohm, 1996, p. 1). Communication is not necessarily dialogue.
Dialogue is a type of
communication, but it is not a communication type that is generally used. We have developed “truths” from our reading, teachers, friends, the
4 media, along with many other sources.1
These “truths”, in Bohm’s
(1996) analysis, are nothing more than opinions. However, holding them as “truths” requires us to defend them as we would any belief.
Bohm
states that it is only through dialogue that we can examine each other’s “truths” and seek the Truth. Even though a dialogue may appear to be a discussion, Bohm reverts to etymology to differentiate.
“Dialogue comes from the Greek
word dialogos. Logos meaning ‘the word,’ or in our case we would think of the ‘meaning of the word.’ And dia means ‘through’ – it doesn’t mean ‘two.’” (Bohm, 1996, p. 6) He then takes on the idea of dialogue as a discussion. “Contrast this with the word ‘discussion,’ which has the same root as ‘percussion’ and ‘concussion.’ It really means to break things up” (Bohm, 1996, p. 7). Dialogue searches for the truth. Bohm believes this to happen in non-goal
oriented
collaborative
communication.
Dialogues
are
traditionally used in the way that Bohm saw them, physically (i.e., faceto-face); even with variations, they occur physically (Bohm, Factor, & Garrett, 1991; Brown, 2001; Cayer, 1996; Isaacs, 1999; Senge, 1990; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). However, with our ability to create virtual worlds, there no longer exists a limitation on why this concept of dialogue (i.e., Bohmian Dialogue) should not be implemented 1
For a further explanation and general introduction to the concept of truth, please see Tarski (1969).
5 in a dispersed manner (i.e., not face-to-face). The ability to engage in a Bohmian dialogue with anyone who has access to the Internet is plausible and could be realized. predicted.
The outcome of these dialogues cannot be
However, as the dialogue progresses toward understanding
the topics discussed, then those involved (i.e., the participants) should progress through the development of the collective knowledge of the dialogue group and so should the state of knowledge of those topics. It is dialogue that engages us and aids us in seeking the truth (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 5). By removing the constraints of face-to-face dialogue using an information system, dialogue can become global and so aid in seeking the truth across borders, subjects, and contexts. Technology can aid this process by placing these ideas into a virtual setting. One of the proponents of deliberative democracy2 (a user of the Bohmian dialogue) states, in the 1980’s technology was expected to provide more access to democracy. However, technologies have tended, at least initially, to mirror and reinforce rather than transform the societies in which they emerge; the new protodemocratic electronic and digital technologies that seemed so promising twenty-five years ago have in fact become part of the problem that confronts strong democrats, not part of the solution (Barber, 2003). The class of information system described later in this dissertation is proffered to be part of the solution in providing increased access to
2
Deliberative democracy is defined as decision making by discussion among free and equal citizens (Elster, 1998).
6 democracy through communication. Bohmian dialogue has been used by the proponents of deliberative democracy.
The development of a
dispersed Bohmian dialogue can further the access to democracy through increased and more varied participation without the constraints of time and space. Bohmian Dialogue The dialogues that Bohm discusses and the ones in practice are generally held in the following manner. An assembly of twenty to forty people convenes. With this size extremes in opinion and understanding are seen. A wide spectrum of ideas and assumptions are seen about any topic that is discussed. These twenty to forty people sit facing each other in a circle.
The time for a dialogue is dependent on the number or
frequency of meetings. Some groups meet once for an entire weekend; some groups meet for two hours every two weeks.
There is no
controlling authority in a dialogue; it is a conversation among equals. No subject is prohibited in a dialogue. The only requirement on the part of the participants is a suspension of thoughts, impulses, and judgments which involves “attention, listening, and looking . . . exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions” during the listening process (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 5). There is no guarantee on a successful dialogue. However, there are antecedents to Bohmian dialogues.
Senge (1990, p. 243) summarizes
7 Bohm’s antecedents to Dialogue: “Bohm identifies three basic conditions that are necessary for dialogue: 1) all participants must ‘suspend’ their assumptions, literally to hold them ‘as if suspended before us’; 2) all participants must regard one another as colleagues; and 3) there must be a “facilitator” who ‘holds the context’ of dialogue.” The successes are legion; however, the following one is chosen as an exemplar. Isaacs of the Dialogue Project of MIT facilitated one notable dialogue. A steel mill that went from 5,000 employees in 1980 to less than 1,000 (in 1992) was having labor problems. Dialogue was used to reconcile the management of the steel plant with the union employees. As an outcome of the dialogue, one of the participants (a union man) said, “you know, I can’t tell who is on what side anymore” (Isaacs, 1993, p. 33).
The outcome was a success with the union and management
working together successfully to save the plant.
A successful dialogue
was defined by Bohm (1996, p. 7) with the simple statement, “everybody wins if anybody wins.” The typical dialogue takes place in a face-to-face environment. As previously discussed, this brings with it temporal and geographic limitations.
The use of technology to support a dispersed Bohmian
dialogue
needed.
is
Recently,
the
International
Conference
on
Information Systems (ICIS) 2006 was moved from a United Kingdom venue to the United States with bad exchange rates and the unexpected
8 high cost to put on the conference being cited as the driving reasons. The announcement of this change of venue resulted in a number of emails to the ISWORLD listserv3 being posted from participants in Europe and Asia. The general tone of the emails was against the decision, with visa troubles being cited as an impediment to attendance at the US site. One respondent made a statement that is pertinent to the discussion of dispersed Bohmian dialogues. That statement was “maybe it is time for a virtual ICIS.”
The publication of abstracts and papers does not require
any tool as sophisticated as Dialogue, but one of the ideas behind conferences, the interaction among participants, does. Purpose of the Study This study serves as a proof-of-concept of the technological feasibility of a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
The technology is ripe
enough to support this activity with the depth and breadth required in the Bohmian scheme. This study is not about outcomes from the dialogue, but rather about the process of creating a virtual space in which a dialogue can exist and flourish.
A Bohmian Dialogue is defined by its
process. The purpose of this study is to achieve understanding. The understanding that is sought is that of the implementation of a Bohmian dialogue process in virtual terms. This dissertation is a proof-of-concept 3
A listserv is a web-based threaded discussion list.
9 development of a collaborative virtual space based on David Bohm’s idea of dialogue (i.e., Bohmian Dialogue).
This understanding is sought
through the development of a design theory (see below) for dispersed Bohmian dialogue systems, the subsequent implementation of one (i.e., a design artifact, a.k.a., the instantiation), and the evaluation of the instantiation (i.e., did a Bohmian dialogue occur?).
Design Theory There exists a class of information system that is described as a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
A Bohmian Dialogue “is a form of free
association conducted in groups, with no predefined purpose in mind besides mutual understanding and exploration of human thought. It aims to allow participants to examine their preconceptions, prejudices and patterns of thought” (Bohm_Dialogue, 2007). If one wished to construct a dispersed Bohmian dialogue, guidelines for its construction would not only be valuable but essential.
No suitable theory exists for this
particular class of system. Therefore, this dissertation presents a design theory that describes a dispersed Bohmian dialogue and its construction. “Walls et al. integrated
(1992) used the name ‘IS design theories’ to refer to an
prescription
consisting
of
a
particular
class
of
user
requirements, a type of system solution (with distinctive features), and a set of effective development practices” (Markus, Majchrzak, & Gasser,
10 2002, p. 180). This design theory is presented as a set of guidelines for developers as well as a set of design and development principles necessary for the construction and evaluation of a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. In this research, a design science approach is utilized to create a design theory for the development of a virtual Bohmian dialogue.
The
design theory is built on the essential constructs presented by Bohm, but is extended to resolve the geographical and temporal constraints inherent in Bohm’s ideal. Bohmian dialogues have occurred to date as only faceto-face meetings of people.
This is limiting.
benefit from the use of dialogues.
Dispersed groups could
Widely dispersed groups have an
additional temporal constraint related to the difference of the time zones of the participants. This research investigated possible solutions to these temporal and geographical limitations. According to Bohm, dialogue is not related to goal-seeking since that forces limitations on the process; however, this design theory is presented to be applicable to both non-goal-based and goal-based collaboration since the design of a goal-seeking equivalent system is more limiting.
A goal-seeking system has additional requirements that
then creates a group decision support system (GDSS) or electronic meeting system.
This dissertation is limited to non goal-seeking
collaborative systems, which can be extended for use in goal based tasks.
11 At the start of this research, no actionable guidelines existed to construct a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. Nothing designed specifically for dispersed Bohmian dialogues existed to support this activity. There are, on the other hand, numerous general technologies for possible use in implementing a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. These are: the World Wide Web (WWW), bulletin boards, email, listservs, chat, MOO/MUD (Multi User Dungeon Object Oriented/Multi User Dungeon) environments, instant messaging, immersive virtual environments, Usenet, wikis, blogs, conference calling, group decision support systems (GDSS), and video conferencing.
Each of these technologies is evaluated for applicability
based on the meta-requirements and meta-design elements developed in this research. There are differences between a Bohmian Dialogue (BD) and a dispersed Bohmian Dialogue (DBD) as implemented using this design theory.
The BD is held in a synchronous manner and the DBD is held
asynchronously; therefore, there is no limitation on time or place in a DBD.
A facilitator holds the context in the BD while the wiki holds the
context in a DBD.
In a BD there is the ability to see the faces of the
others participating in the dialogue (this is both a positive and a negative); a DBD one does not have this capability but the same, but offsetting,
positives
and
negatives
exist.
In
an
asynchronous
environment, participants have more time to think before responding and
12 more time to evaluate their feelings about what the other participants have said.
While differences exist, the elimination of the temporal and
geographic constraints far outweigh the negatives. Research Goal Bohmian dialogues have been the subject of study (Boogaard, 2000; Takatsuka, 2001), but not in terms of virtual or dispersed representation. Can a dispersed Bohmian dialogue take place in a virtual world and in an asynchronous environment? What would one look like? How would it structure itself? This research may provide more questions than answers; to that end, new knowledge is generated. These questions will be addressed and answers will be proffered using artifacts of design science. The objectives are clear. First, develop a design theory for a virtual Bohmian dialogue. Second, create a system that conforms to the design theory. Finally, evaluate the created system for adherence to the design theory, thereby evaluating the design theory; and also evaluate the use of the system in terms of Bohm’s objectives for dialogue.
The first two
activities are related to the building of a design artifact and the latter two are the evaluation of the artifact. This maps to the two basic activities that compose design science, build and evaluate (March & Smith, 1995, p. 254).
13 Overview of the Research A recent editorial lamented that as a discipline we [Information Science researchers] have been spending a great deal of our research time on solving the currently identified problems (e.g., successful implementations of ERP systems) instead of problems that have longevity (Weber, 2003, p. iv).
The editorial goes on to ask why we (as a
discipline) do not spend more of our research effort on solving generic, prototypical problems.
Communication, in both goal-oriented and non-
goal-oriented environments is a prototypical problem. technology has the potential for helping the world.
The use of Attempting to
provide a better way of communicating to increase the knowledge of all participants (i.e., organizational learning) has great potential. While this research does not purport to solve any of the world’s problems, it may be a small step in that direction.4 This research is directly related to nongoal-oriented collaboration. However, it is extensible to collaboration in general.
It also adds to the body of knowledge in computer mediated
collaboration (CMC). This research also has a practical significance.
The developed
design theory will support any collaborative communication. This allows for
goal-oriented
collaboration
to
take
place
in
a
less-structured
collaborative environment rather than a more formal collaboration 4
Even a small action may have a dramatic effect. See Chaos Theory specifically, Lorenz (1993).
14 supported by a group decision support system (GDSS).
The design
theory and techniques developed as part of this research could easily be used in an organizational learning environment, possibly as a knowledge management repository. This dissertation begins (i.e., Chapter 2) with an analysis of the existing literature on Bohmian dialogue and the secondary and tertiary literature related to dialogues.
Further analysis is presented on the
creation of a virtual space for dialogue and notable attempts made by others. Chapter 3 discusses the approach to the research, the methodology used for the conduct of the research, and the development of the design theory.
Chapter 4 presents the design theory for dispersed Bohmian
dialogues. The design theory is presented as sets of meta-requirements, a meta-design, kernel theories, testable design product hypotheses, design methods, and testable design process hypotheses. Chapter 5 discusses the instantiation (i.e., artifact) of the design theory using the concept of a wiki (e.g., a CoWeb). The rationale for the use of a wiki is also presented as it is a description of the functionality used in the instantiation. Chapter 6 describes the wiki software used for the instantiation, the initiation of the evaluation of the design theory artifact, and the participants in the research. Chapter 7 reports on the evaluation of the instantiation through an analysis of the corpus of the
15 dialogue, the results of a survey of the participants, ethnographic notes, and anecdotal evidence, and the results for each of the testable hypotheses. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions reached in this research, the delimitations and limitations of the research, and identification of areas for further research. There are seven appendices.
Chapter 2 – Review of the Literature Introduction There are five areas within the academic and non-academic literature that define the scope of this dissertation and set the context. This literature also shows the similarities within the existing research, and the uniqueness of the research that is the focus of this dissertation. These five areas are (1) dialogues, specifically Bohmian Dialogues; (2) Decision Support Systems [DSS] and Group Decision Support Systems [GDSS];
(3)
communities organizational traditional
deliberative of
interest,
learning.
(face-to-face),
democracy; and
(4)
communities
Previous dispersed,
virtual of
instantiations and
communities,
practice; of
and
(5)
self-described
pseudo-virtual
Bohmian
Dialogues5 are also presented in this section. Bohmian Dialogues The discussion of dialogue needs to be separated into three bodies of literature.
The primary literature deals directly with the process of
dialogue as Bohm envisioned and practiced it. The secondary literature deals with the practice and description of others who utilize Bohm’s process, but extend it to their own requirements.
5
Finally, the tertiary
A pseudo-virtual Bohmian dialogue implemented as a listserv that discussed various topics was related to Bohmian dialogues by name only (The Table, 2004b).
16
17 literature is related to dialogue in general terms that may relate to Bohmian dialogues but, in most cases, do not. Primary Literature The primary text for this dissertation, which serves as the source for the development of the kernel theory (see Chapter 4), is On Dialogue by David Bohm (1996). Senge, in the Preface to this book, states, For Bohm, the “tacit ground” is what holds a society together, and here is where the changes he hoped to encourage must unfold. “Thought is emerging from the tacit ground,” he says, “and any fundamental change in thought will come from the tacit ground.” Repeatedly, he stresses that a society that works requires a “coherent” tacit ground, and that is missing today. “Shared meaning is really the cement that holds society together, and you could say that the present society has very poor quality cement . . . The society at large has a very incoherent set of meaning. In fact, this set of ‘shared meanings’ is so incoherent that it is hard to say that they have any real meaning at all.” (Bohm, 1996, p. ix) Another text that directly and succinctly describes the process and rationale of dialogue is Dialogue – A Proposal (Bohm, Factor, & Garrett, 1991).
Some of Bohm’s ideas appear as early as the 1960‘s in his
correspondence with Charles Biederman (Pylkkanen, 1999). Additionally, Cayer (1997) presents a succinct outline of Bohm’s dialogue process. Additional insight on dialogue and collective knowledge can be gleaned from Thought as a System, which is a transcript of a seminar that Bohm led at the Ojai Institute where he entered into a dialogue with the seminar participants (Bohm, 1994). Another transcript of a dialogue, this time between only two people, is the one between Jiddu Krishnamurti
18 and Bohm (Krishnamurti & Bohm, 1985). The final offering from Bohm and Mark Edwards (a photographer) to support his thesis that there are social, political, and environmental crises facing our world, is Changing Consciousness, which is described by the authors as “a dialogue of words and images” (Bohm & Edwards, 1991). Leahy (2001) offers an analysis of Bohmian dialogues (face-toface), a review of the literature, a study of one dialogue group, and then a synthesis of the theoretical and empirical findings of those two activities.
Leahy’s synthesis is based on the various ideas of dialogue
presented by David Bohm, Socrates, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers, Martin Buber, and Jean Baker Miller. While these six opinions of dialogue differ, Leahy (2001, p. 229) states the following observation, “Dialogue definitionally defies definition.
While it cannot be defined, dialogue can
be characterized. Neither can dialogue be conjured up or managed into being.
Conditions can be created that provide time and space for the
possibility of dialogue.” Cayer
(1996)
makes
an
exploratory
inquiry
into
long-term
practitioners of Bohmian dialogues. He identifies five dimensions of this practice: dialogue as (1) conversation, (2) inquiry, (3) creation of shared meaning, (4) a participatory process, and (5) a collective meditation. Takatsuka (2001) identifies patterns that both aid and inhibit the reflective processes that occur with the flow of communication within the
19 dialogue.
Takatsuka also identifies factors that co-occur with the
formation of these patterns. patterns,”
“insisting
on
He sees two factors within the “inhibiting
one’s
own
view”
and
“exhibiting
lack
of
suspension and sensitivity to the group as a whole;” within the “promoting patterns” he sees, “being open to a larger dimension,” “practicing
self-observation
and
reflection,”
“practicing
value-free
observation of what happens,” “bringing the attention of the group to the present moment,” “exploring or clarifying the issues that are presented,” “inquiring into the issues at a different level,” and “experiencing and sharing an insight” (Takatsuka, 2001, pp. 80, 134). There are few analyses of Bohmian dialogues. There are, however, numerous ones on the use of aspects of Bohm’s dialogue in other areas for different purposes. These are described in the following two sections. Secondary Literature Bohm’s concept of dialogue is introduced to the world via Senge’s The Fifth Discipline.
Senge (1990) uses the concept of dialogue as a
team learning technique.
He describes the process and shows great
interest in the process, especially as it relates to solving problems. It is interesting to note that Senge wrote the preface to a new edition of Bohm’s On Dialogue. In that preface, Senge defends Bohm against critics that characterized Bohm as a romantic idealist. He describes Bohm as an extreme realist and then states that Bohm “knew that no society has ever
20 faced the sort of global predicament we face, and that we are not likely to muddle through without radical changes in our way of being – together” (Bohm, 1996, p. xiv). William Isaacs (1999) describes the use of dialogue using mostly anecdotal evidence to support its usefulness in general and specifically Bohmian dialogues.
Isaacs was a researcher at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) working on their Dialogue Project.
In his
book, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, Isaacs discusses a four phase evolution in Bohmian dialogues. These four phases are: Phase 1 – Instability of the container Phase 2 – Instability in the container Phase 3 – Inquiry in the container Phase 4 – Creativity in the container. The container is Isaacs’ word for the field of conversation.
The
container idea is that, within it, we hold the sum of “assumptions, shared intentions, and beliefs as a group” (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, p. 360). The first phase, instability of the container, describes the process of beginning a dialogue in which the participants decide to allow chaos to be present in the dialogue. If not for this decision, a decision to impart order on the dialogue process would be necessary and that decision would be antithetical to the dialogue process.
It is in this chaos that the
21 participants become aware of what personal beliefs each one of them holds.
Once the personal conflicts associated with this chaos are
surfaced, productive dialogue can begin (Isaacs, 1999, pp. 257-264; Senge et al., 1994, pp. 361-362). The second phase, instability in the container, arises when the group has decided to live with the chaos of the container.
This chaos
then leads to a “crisis of suspension” (Senge et al., 1994, p. 362). In this phase polarizations occur through the voicing of extreme views. results in others defending those views.
This
This process requires a
suspension of assumptions and for the participants to ask themselves, “What is the meaning of this?” and “Where am I listening from?” (Senge et al., 1994, pp. 362-363). The third phase, inquiry in the container, is when the participants begin to inquire as a group. This is the phase of reflective dialogue. The participants no longer feel obligated to insist that others respond, to argue with their position.
They also understand at this point in the
process that the point is to slow down and think about the dialogue. This activity also creates a new crisis, that of collective pain.
People now
sense their separateness. There is the collective feeling of belonging and the sense of being separate brings on this pain (Isaacs, 1999, pp. 272279; Senge et al., 1994, p. 363).
22 The fourth and final phase, creativity in the container, is the rarest phase in a dialogue.
It is the place where synchronicities occur.
For
example, one participant may think of something and another participant says it. Each member is part of the whole and yet an individual. There is collective thought but individual thought also. This is also a place where widely different points of view exist but nothing requires them to change (Isaacs, 1999, pp. 279-285; Senge et al., 1994, pp. 363-364). While none of the above are in Bohm’s descriptions of dialogue and the dialogue process, Isaacs has a great deal of experience in utilizing the dialogue process, which he outlines in his book, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (Isaacs, 1999). Robert Hargrove describes dialogue as “a conversation where there is a free flow of meaning in a group and diverse views and perspectives are encouraged” (Hargrove, 1995, p. 176).
Hargrove departs from
Bohm’s concept, which he (Hargrove) calls collaborative conversation. He recalls Isaacs saying, “dialogue is not about building community, but about inquiring into the nature of community. Collaborations, in contrast, are based on inspiring visions and are deeply purposeful but are focused on practical, down-to-earth, day-in/day-out accomplishments that are carried out in conversations” (Hargrove, 1998, p. 161). Hargrove
(1998,
pp.
collaborative conversation:
165-170)
identified
five
phases
in
a
23 Phase 1 - Clarify the purpose of the conversation. Phase 2 - Gather divergent view and perspectives. Phase 3 - Build shared understanding of divergent views and perspectives. Phase 4 - Create new options by connecting different views. Phase 5 - Generate a conversation for action. Hargrove (1995, pp. 224-225) also presents a set of five stages that groups evolve through from unproductive conversations to dialogue: Stage 1 – Polite discussion. People communicate diplomatically to avoid open conflict while at the same time sending mixed messages. Stage 2 – Rational debate. People put issues on the table, arguing the different sides rationally and suppressing their emotions. Stage 3 – Chaotic discussion or war. People realize they have both intellectual and interpersonal conflicts that are not easily resolved and that could lead to a blowup. Stage 4 – Community dialogue or embracing the enemy.
People
start to communicate with authenticity and vulnerability and empty themselves of biases toward other people and views.
24 Stage 5 – Generative dialogue. Creating something new becomes possible. Tertiary Literature There is a rich and extensive intellectual history of dialogue. This includes philosophical studies, obviously, of David Bohm (Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna, 2004; Bohm, 1996; Schroll, 1997), Martin Buber (Anderson et al., 2004; Arnett, 1986; Bergman, 1991; Buber, 1970; R. Grudin, 1996; Linell, 1998; Maranhao, 1990), Paulo Freire (2004), Mikhal Bakhtin (Anderson et al., 2004; R. Grudin, 1996; Linell, 1998; Maranhao, 1990; Mascovski, 1997; Zappen, 2004), and Socrates (Maranhao, 1990; Zappen, 2004).
The philosophy of communication literature tends to
present a post-modernist view, where we see the ideas of Heidegger (Anderson et al., 2004; Crossley & Roberts, 2004; R. Grudin, 1996; Heidegger, 1977; Krell, 1977; Maranhao, 1990; Myerson, 2001) and Habermas (Anderson et al., 2004; Crossley & Roberts, 2004; Habermas, 1973, 1987, 1990, 1998; Maranhao, 1990; Myerson, 2001) appear. Habermas suggests that the manner in which we arrive at our conclusions is permanent and above criticism. The conclusions are subject to being challenged, criticized, and done again. This does not guarantee a correct decision in all cases, but allows for a new decision where the conclusion is suspect (Eriksen & Weigard, 2003, p. 4).
25 Bohmian dialogues or some aspects of Bohm’s processes are used directly or with modifications in a variety of settings and methods. Cayer (1997) investigates use of Bohmian dialogues and Argyris’ action science (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985) in organization settings. Hale (1995) presents an overview of the practice of dialogue in an organizational setting.
Other settings for dialogues include organizational change
(Bowman, 1997), leadership (Boogaard, 2000), education (Arnett, 1992; Voetterl, 2002), psychology (Hanley, 2003), religion (Kramer & O'Fallon, 1997), systems intelligence (Slotte, 2003), and as a commercial venture that is a salon6 type of dialogue, but seeking the same collective knowledge of Bohm (J. Brown, 2001). Dialogue Exemplars There are numerous examples of dialogues, some that have been wildly successful and some that have been dismal failures (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Isaacs, 1999; Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1999; Senge et al., 1994; Yankelovich, 2001).
However, most of the research and
reports on dialogues have been of an anecdotal nature. Consoletti (1998) presents an empirical study of a dialogue group from Eugene, Oregon. He finds that the process of a Bohmian dialogue is recursive.
He
A salon is a gathering of people under the roof of an inspiring hostess or host, partly to amuse one another and partly to refine their taste and increase their knowledge through conversation and readings, often consciously following Horace's definition of the aims of poetry, "to please and educate" (aut delectare aut prodesse est). The term is commonly associated with French literary and philosophical gatherings of the 17th century and 18th century, though the practice continues today in many cities around the world (Salon, 2007). 6
26 observes that there is a connection between listening and non-listening in the periodic silences that occurred in the dialogue.
He observes the
shared flow of meaning that Bohm sought in the dialogue process. The Co-Intelligence Institute (2003) is actively involved in using dialogue for social change and understanding.
The Co-Intelligence Institute (2003)
states, Not all communication is dialogue. Dialogue is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility. Any communication that fits this definition, the Co-Intelligence Institute considers dialogue. Communication that doesn't fit this definition, we don't call dialogue. There is one notable example of a virtual Bohmian Dialogue. It is “The Table.”
The Table began as “Bohm Dialogue” utilizing all of the
ideas in Bohm’s book to have a dispersed Bohmian dialogue (The Table, 2004b).
It ended after about six years.
It ended because one of the
members, who was acting as an administrator for the site, decided that the site should evolve to a moderated site from the then current state of an unmoderated one. This effectively ended the dialogue. There are two sides to every story; this story is not an exception. Peter Krauss, a “The Table” participant, states that, in november of 2003 donald factor and william van-den-heuvel (under the collaboration of franis engel), very much in a fascist re/action, putsched against the former david bohm dialogue group that at this point was running for about 6 years ~ without rules, without rulers, without a set agenda, without dialogue-cops .... very much the way described by david bohm
27 in his work, in particular his book "on dialogue" (by routledge). by "putsched" i mean: they, who were holding what was thought to be a merely technical function as "administrators", used their godog-server "power" and forcefully closed the group against the outspoken will of the vast majority of the active members. first factor and heuvel pulled the plug on the (public) archive, then they closed the subscriber-list and finally, since that did not seem to satisfy their longing to shut un/certain thoughts/thinkgs/thinkgers [sic] out of the dialogue process, they closed the forum itself ~ period. just to replace the former un-moderated list shortly after with a "new" moderated one; meaning, all the posts there need henceforth the approval of the "moderator", don factor. this in itself would be bizzare enough, considering bohm's dialogue proposal. it is even more so since at least one of the diablockers, namely don factor, 's [sic] among the "fathers" of the original openstructered [sic] open-minded un-moderated dialogue idea. (The Table, 2004a)7 Don Factor (the old administrator of “The Table”) explains the changes made to “The Table”, The list is about to be restarted as a moderated list. This is a new experience to all of us and we'll see how it goes. Don Factor has kindly agreed to be moderator. When you resubscribe you will be send [sic] the following welcome message: Just to fill you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for: It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt to find out how we might proceed from where he left off. It is not intended as an on-line dialogue but rather an on-line 7
This quote is from the website The Table.
28 group exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue. Unlike the previous group and unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is necessary to keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to delete messages that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any participant who persists in disrupting what we hope will be an exercise in the creative exploration of a complex body of work that we feel may have potential importance for the future of all of us. Unfortunately we have found it necessary to handle the list in this way based on more than ten years of experience struggling with unmoderated groups. [. . .] The act of resubscribing is taken as acceptance of the new terms. Please, note that the moderator can refuse or revoke your re-subscription at his discretion. The moderator can also put your contributions on "hold" awaiting approval or refusal to be distributed to the list. This is only meant as a kind of "emergency brake". Hopefully, it will never be necessary to do this. administrator don factor , william van-den-heuvel, franis engel (The Table, 2004a) In the spirit of dialogue, both sides have been presented.
“The Table”
still exists, but as an email list (i.e., a one-to-many email list).
It is
interesting to note that deviation from Bohm’s process ended the dialogue.
It is even more interesting that the person precipitating the
change to a moderated list was Don Factor, one of Bohm’s colleagues and proponents of the open-structured, open-minded, unmoderated dialogue idea (The Table, 2004a).
29 Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) and Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue There is a difference between a dispersed Bohmian Dialogue and a Group Decision Support System (GDSS).
The taxonomy presented by
DeSanctis and Gallupe in which they define three levels of GDSSs is contrary to the basic concepts of dialogue (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). For this reason, dialogue can support groups in decision support, but does not meet the characteristics of a GDSS. Examples are presented below by the level of GDSSs defined by DeSanctis and Gallupe, and including the characteristic functions of each level that are not supported in a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. DeSanctis and Gallupe’s level one includes voting capabilities and support for agenda display and management. Additionally, functionality is included for rating and ranking solicitation and display (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987, p. 593). Level two in the model includes features for project management (e.g., PERT, CPM, Gantt), budget and resource allocation, and utility and probability assessment (e.g., decision trees, risk assessment) (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987, p. 594). Finally, level three includes a rule base and the tools for developing rules for the decision making process.
Along with
this, automation of formalized decision making procedures (e.g., Robert’s Rules of Order or Parliamentary Procedure) are characteristics of level three (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987, p. 594).
30 Even though this dissertation extends to the development of software to support group interaction, there is a difference from the previously published research of computer support of groups and decision making, especially in the broad area of Decision Support Systems (DSS) (Bonczek, Holsapple, & Whinston, 1981; Keen & Morton, 1978; Mittra, 1986; Power, 2002). making.
That difference is in the emphasis on decision
Decision making and the decision are the goals stated in the
body of literature on the development of computer systems to support groups (Dennis, George, Jessup, Nunamaker, & Vogel, 1988; Sprague, 1980).
This literature also focuses on the system and technological
inventions and innovations (Bidgoli, 1999, pp. 399-430; Kraemer & King, 1988; Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991). This dissertation could be considered part of the greater concept of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) systems; it differs, however, from the traditional views and the direction of the literature of that area.
Yet, it does fit within the rather broad scope, since it
addresses a computer system that supports the activities of a group of people.
The basic difference between the CSCW body of literature and
the research of this dissertation is that the systems considered under CSCW have a focus on the work of the groups they support (J. Grudin, 1999). This dissertation covers the free exchange and memorialization of the group’s collective knowledge.
31 Deliberative Democracy Deliberative democracy is defined as “decision making by discussion among free and equal citizens” (Elster, 1998, p. 1). Further: Diego Gambetta, citing Austen-Smith, defines the idea by features of the process: “a conversation whereby individuals speak and listen sequentially before making a collective decision.” As far as this definition goes, deliberation need not have any impact on the outcome; indeed, it is an important implication of Austen-Smith’s theory that deliberation often makes no difference for the outcome. (Elster, 1998, p. 8) With these definitions, there is a direct link to Bohm’s concept of Dialogue in practice, with the emphasis on listening as well as talking, and the idea that the dialogue is not linked to the outcome. As such, deliberative democracy (Saward, 2000) has strong links to Bohm’s Dialogue.
The National Conference for Community and Justice
utilizes Bohm’s techniques for community dialogue (Winborne & Smith, 2001). Dialogue is the process required for public deliberation (Bohman, 1996). The deliberative democracy movement has spawned interest and therefore research in the use of the Internet for deliberations including the influence of online deliberations in the 2000 presidential election (Price & Cappella, 2002; Stanley, Weare, & Musso, 2004; Sullivan, 2003), privacy (Sullivan, 2003), and commercial vehicle safety (Stanley et al., 2004).
Some question the legitimacy of Internet use in democracy
because of the problems associated with the digital divide and the control
32 of access to the Internet by authoritarian governments. For example, the Taliban officially banned the Internet in Afghanistan in May 2001 (Simon, Corrales, & Wolfensberger, 2002, pp. 1-8). However, the successes of the use of technology for deliberative democracy are notable. For example, the “21st Century Town Meeting” of the nonprofit organization AmericaSpeaks has been in development and use since 1995 (Lukensmeyer & Brigham, 2002).
The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) employed the Internet for a forum on commercial vehicle safety. The success was limited because of lack of FMCSA management involvement and a mostly one way communication into the FMCSA.
Dialogue did occur, but between the participants
exclusive of the FMCSA (Stanley et al., 2004). There are numerous examples of deliberative democracy and Bohmian dialogue being put to use for the public good (Dryzek, 2000; Schoem, Hurtado, Sevig, Chesler, & Sumida, 2001; Schoem & Saunders, 2001; G. Smith, 2003). The extent of dialogue activity is wide. Hutson, who, while working at the Western Justice Center, compiled a list of more than 430 organizations that “provide resources, training, and experience in intergroup dialogue in the United States and abroad” (2001, p. 345). Technology is utilized in the deliberative democracy movement. As stated earlier, Barber remembers the promise of technology to the movement (Barber, 2003, p. xiv).
He laments the tendency for
33 technologies to “mirror and reinforce rather than transform the societies in which they emerge” (Barber, 2003, p. xv).
He does remain hopeful
and believes that the potential of the new digital media “remains salient” (Barber, 2003, p. xiv).
He does express concern that the new
technologies may not serve the deliberative democracy movement well because their speed and instant accessibility “encumber and compromise democratic deliberation, which demands a slow and deliberate pace” (Barber, 2003, p. xv).
The solution presented by this dissertation
eliminates the problems associated with the technologies that Barber discusses above. Communities, Virtual and Otherwise The idea of a community is essential to this research since it provides an area of study that directly pertains to the idea of dialogue. The concept of community extends from a “false karass” (Vonnegut, 1963, pp. 81-82) through a “community of interest” or “community of practice” (J. S. Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
None of these are substitutes for a
dialogue but dialogue may be found in the latter communities. A false karass is essentially a group of people that are somehow linked together, but share no common interest or common purpose. Vonnegut uses the example of “Hoosier” to illustrate a false karass (Vonnegut, 1963). A Hoosier is a resident of the state of Indiana. Other
34 than residence, these people need not have any commonality. One of the first virtual communities, The WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) started with people interested in talking with each other and then offering subscriptions for others to join. Membership in The WELL provided email support and areas for discussion (Hafner, 2001). The membership, like cable television subscribers or subscribers to a given Internet Service Provider, may have nothing in common except their membership or status as a customer in a specific service. This is the lowest end of the community spectrum in terms of group cohesion. For example, they may not even know that they belong to such a community; they probably do not know the other members of the community or if they do, it is unlikely that they are aware of each others’ membership in the community. A community of interest (Licklider & Taylor, 1968) or community of practice is a group of people that share a “concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002). A dialogue resembles a community and a community could benefit from the processes of a dialogue.
However, there is no requirement for a given
state or type of community to utilize a dialogue. Even a false karass may enable a type of burgeoning dialogue.
The overlap of the literature on
dialogue and that of communities is significant, but is silent on the construction of a dispersed Bohmian Dialogue.
35 An important aspect of the virtual community literature is in the development of virtual communities and the support of communities with information systems. The development of these information systems falls within the literature associated with computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) (Gopal & Prasad, 2000; Guzdial, Rick, & Kerimbaev, 2000; Kristoffersen
&
Ljungberg,
1999)
and
computer-mediated
communications (CMC) (Jarvenpaa, Rao, & Huber, 1988; Raghu, Ramesh, Chang, & Whinston, 2001). It is within this body of literature that some of the technological expertise that is required by this research is evident. There are many descriptions of virtual communities and their promise and problems (J. S. Brown & Duguid, 2002; Hafner, 2001; Jarvenpaa et al., 1988; Raghu et al., 2001; Rheingold, 1993; Rothaermel & Sugiyama, 2001; M. A. Smith & Kollock, 1999; Trauth & Jessup, 2000; Vallee, 2003; Wenger, 1998). The creation of communities, especially virtual ones, is well-covered in the literature (Abeygunawardena, 2002; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Renninger
&
Shumar,
2002)
as
are
the
acts
of
collaboration
(Abeygunawardena, 2002; Arnett, 1986; Axelrod, 1984; George, Easton, Nunamaker,
&
Northcraft,
1990;
McGrath
&
Hollingshead,
1994;
Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Renninger & Shumar, 2002; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002), and computer-mediated learning (Alavi, 1994).
Why people join and stay with communities (Butler, 2001;
36 Chidambaram & Tung, 2005; Granovetter, 1973; Weber, Loumakis, & Bergman, 2003; Wellman et al., 1996), the psychological aspects of this (Gackenbach, 1998; Wallace, 1999), and the effect of trust on the activities of collaborative groups and individuals (Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Piccoli & Ives, 2003) is pertinent to the research of the dissertation; however, it is not the focus of this research. One of the more interesting aspects that is useful for the analysis and understanding of the dynamics of a dispersed Bohmian Dialogue, but outside the scope of this research, is
the
individual
differences
in
personality
types
that
participate
(Nakamura, 2002) and how they are affected by the Internet (EnglishLueck, 2002; Holeton, 1998; Negroponte, 1995; Shaviro, 2003; Tuomi, 2002; Turkle, 1995) and in groups (Fornas, Klein, Ladendorf, Sunden, & Sveningsson, 2002; Gurstein, 2000; Holeton, 1998; Jones, 1999; McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Valovic, 2000). There is a type of group (i.e., virtual team) that has special significance, since its members are related by a goal. Even though Bohmian dialogues, by their nature, are not goal-seeking, dialogues have been successful in these virtual team environments (Abeygunawardena, 2002; Andriessen, 2003; Bostrom, Watson, & Kinney, 1992; Easterbrook, 1993; Godar & Ferris, 2004; Igbaria & Tan, 1998; Pauleen, 2004).
37 Organizational Learning “Organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them. The individuals’ learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system” (Argyris, 1992).
The process of dialogue facilitates
organizational learning (Abeygunawardena, 2002; Argyris, 1964, 1965, 1970, 1992; Argyris & Schon, 1996; J. S. Brown & Duguid, 1991, 2002; Chawla & Renesch, 1995; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003; Isaacs, 1993; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, & King, 2000; Schein, 1993; Schon, 1983; Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994). The concept of an organization, even if a false karass, can exhibit organizational learning through a dialogue. It is in this organizational learning that the collective knowledge/organizational memory (Mitchell & Sackney, 2001; Stein & Zwass, 1995) of the group is realized. It is this collective knowledge that is the outcome of dialogue. Argyris’ double-loop learning is also evident in the process of dialogue.
Double-loop learning is “the detection and
correction of errors where the correction requires changes not only in action strategies but also in the values that govern the theory-in-use”
8
(Argyris, 2004, p. 10).
Argyris states that, “Theories of action are of two types. One is the theory that we espouse, which is composed of values, beliefs, and action strategies. The other is the theory-in-use, which is stored in our heads in the form of designs that are composed of action strategies, intended consequences organized in causal sequence. We call these designs-in-use. Our designs-in-use, when combined, constitute out theory-in-use. The theory-in-use is the master program; designs-in-use are sub-routines” (2004, p. 8). 8
38 Summary This research required investigation into five distinct areas i.e., (1) Bohmian dialogue, (2) Decision Support Systems [DSS] and Group Decision Support Systems [GDSS], (3) deliberative democracy, (4) virtual communities, communities of interest, and communities of practice, and (5) organizational learning to gain the necessary understanding of the scope of this dissertation. The pertinent literature representative of each of the five areas was examined to ensure that the scope of this dissertation was a unique addition to this literature and that the appropriate foundation for the development of this dissertation was constructed. This review resulted in the following conclusions: (1)
the idea of dialogue is not new, but the specifics of Bohm’s approach are relatively new and, therefore, have limited published research available;
(2)
the implementation of a Bohmian dialogue using technology has an even more limited body of published research;
(3)
even within the adjunct areas investigated, there is limited research available that relates to non-goal collaboration; most of the research is associated with technological solutions to specific goals or outcomes;
(4)
there is a wealth of research available on the interaction of participants in dialogical meetings;
(5)
there is also a wealth of research available on the use of technology to facilitate collaboration.
39 In conclusion, there is dearth of research on the use of technology to support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. It is with this dissertation that a design theory is proffered as an addition to the available literature.
Chapter 3 – Approach to Research and Methodology
Introduction This
dissertation
utilizes
a
design
science
approach,
and
therefore, this chapter is a departure from the traditional dissertation methodology chapter. This chapter discusses theory, and specifically design theory and its place in the study of information systems. Also discussed are the methodologies utilized in the development of the design theory for dispersed Bohmian Dialogues, the development of an artifact of the design theory (i.e., an instantiation), and the evaluation of that artifact against the design theory’s testable hypotheses. Theory and Design Theory Theory development in information systems research is the topic of much discussion by those within the discipline.
These arguments
and debates are outside the scope of this dissertation. However, there are some points that need to be addressed before this dissertation progresses to the point of presenting a design theory (see Chapter 4). Formal theory development is defined by a number of works in that body of literature.
The majority of the work on the development of
theory relates to the social sciences (Asher, Weisberg, Kessel, & Shively, 1984; Blalock, 1969; Dubin, 1969; Reynolds, 1971; Shye, 1978; Smith, 1987; Stinchcombe, 1968). 40
41 However, there are notable examples of proposed theories within information systems (Alter, 1999; Huber, 1990), methods for theory development, e.g., disciplined imagination (Weick, 1989), using paradox (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989) and metatriangulation from multiple paradigms (Lewis & Grimes, 1999), the practical nature of theory (Peffers, 2004), and the gap between theory and practice (Martin, 2004). Even the general concept of theory has multiple interpretations. The Oxford English Dictionary has two9 definitions of theory: 3. A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed. 4.a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. (Simpson et al., 1989, Vol. 17, p. 902) There are two ways of describing something; one can describe what the thing is or what it is not. Sutton and Staw (1995) discuss “What Theory is Not” with DiMaggio (1995) commenting on their work suggests that their ideas are even more complicated that they suggest. 9
He offers three additional issues: (1) “There is more than
There are two other definitions for theory in the Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition); both are considered obsolete. They are: “1. a sight, a spectacle. obs. rare; 2. mental view, contemplation. obs.” (Simpson, Weiner, & Oxford University Press, 1989, Vol. 17, p.902).
42 one kind of good theory” (p. 391); (2) “Good theory splits the difference”
(p.
392);
and
(3)
“Theory
construction
is
social
construction, often after the fact” (p. 393). Weick (1995) also takes this negative method of describing theory but compares and contrasts theorizing with theory.
Whetten (1989) attempts to answer the
question, “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” and Hamilton (2004) calls for a general information systems theory even though Alter (1999) proposed such a theory earlier (Alter, 1999).
Finally,
even though there is an assumed consensus that the information systems discipline is an applied discipline that relies on other reference disciplines, Baskerville and Myers (2002) argue that the information systems discipline is poised to become a reference discipline for other disciplines. Metcalfe (2004, pp. 14-16) presents an overview of the various concepts of theories in the information systems realm.
Of the ten
citations that Metcalfe uses, it is interesting to note that four of them deal with design theory, either directly e.g., (Walls, Widmeyer, & El Sawy, 1992, 2004) or as an exemplar e.g., (Markus, Majchrzak, & Gasser, 2002). Design and Design Research Design research is not new; it is the basis of computer science and engineering research and is slowly working its way into the field of
43 information systems.
Newell and Simon (1976) state that design
research is part of the “empirical inquiry” that is not necessarily experimentation in computer science. Simon (1996) first proposed a separation of the natural sciences and the “sciences of the artificial”. The difference between natural science and the science of the artificial is that the artificial is produced from human artifice rather than nature (Simon, 1996, pp. 3-4).
It is from Simon (1996) that we have the
concept of an artifact, which is one of the deliverables from design research.
An artifact may be a product or a tool.
Brooks (1996)
describes the computer scientist as a toolsmith. Akin to Simon, March and Smith (March & Smith, 1995, p. 253) present their definition of design science as a contrast to natural science, “natural science tries to understand reality, design science attempts to create things that serve human purposes”. Build and Evaluate March and Smith (1995, p. 254) state that design science consists of two basic activities, build and evaluate. Chapters Four and Five of this dissertation are concerned with the build aspect of design science, whilst Chapters Six and Seven are concerned with the evaluate aspect.
The literature associated with the building of the
design theory and its evaluations are presented in this chapter.
44 Build Design science is described by Fuller (Fuller, 1992) through an example: The function of what I call design science is to solve problems by introducing into the environment new artifacts, the availability of which will induce their spontaneous employment by humans and thus, coincidentally, cause humans to abandon their previous problem-producing behaviors and devices. For example, when humans have a vital need to cross the roaring rapids of a river, as a design scientist I would design them a bridge, causing them, I am sure, to abandon spontaneously and forever the risking of their lives by trying to swim to the other shore. Further explorations into design science (Burstein & Gregor, 1999; Caws, 1969; Freeman & Hart, 2004; Gregg, Kulkarni, & Vinze, 2001) illustrate the idea that it is also theoretical work to develop a theory for the construction of an artifact and then test the theory by actually building the artifact (instantiation) for evaluation.
This
process is no less predictive than the development of a predictive theory.
The theory is predictive “about the utility (effectiveness,
efficiency, etc.) of applying the technological solution or ‘meta-design’ to solve a problem or address some ‘meta-requirements’” (Venable, 2006, p. 12). While there are a number of approaches to design research, the basic idea that design research [design science] is composed of two main activities: building and evaluating (March & Smith, 1995) is used.
45 March
and
Smith
(1995,
pp.
256-258)
also
identify
the
four
deliverables of design research: constructs, model, method, and instantiation. design
science
Other works are related to conducting research using methods
(Association
for
Information
Systems,
Vaishnavi, & Kuechler, 2004; Au, 2001; Goldkuhl, 2004; Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, 2004; Mandviwalla, 1994; March & Smith, 1995; Walls et al., 1992, 2004). Hevner, et al. (2004) was the initial guide for this research because of the currency of the publication of their paper; however, it became clear that Walls, et al. was more directive, especially in the matter of design theory construction. The basis for the format of the design theory is from the seven features described by Walls, et al. (1992) and further elaborated upon by Gregor (2002a). Figure 1 – Components of an Information Systems Design Theory Kernel Theories
Meta-Requirements
Meta-Design
Design Method
Testable Design Product and Process Hypotheses
Source: after Walls, et al. (1992)
46 Central in this process is the development of the design theory. The first three of March and Smith’s (1995) four deliverables are related to the design theory.
However, the development of a design theory is
somewhat illusive. General works (Blalock, 1969; DiMaggio, 1995; Dubin, 1969; Lewis & Grimes, 1999; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Reynolds, 1971; Smith, 1987; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Van de Ven, 1989; Weick, 1989, 1995; Whetten, 1989) on theory development provided some guidance, but not specifically to the development of a design theory.
The works related to development of social theories
(Stinchcombe, 1968), those in the social sciences (Asher et al., 1984; Shye, 1978), information systems (Gregor, 2002b), and organizational theories (Bacharach, 1989) also provided insight. Walls, et al. (1992) provides greater detail as to the construction of a design theory. However, Gregor (2002a) and Gregor and Jones (2003) present practical direction in the development of design theories.
Gregor
(2002a) also presents an evaluation of the theoretical contribution of a design theory.
Using the accepted taxonomy for theories, she
identifies a design theory as a “normative or prescriptive type of theory – it gives guidelines or principles that can be followed in practice” (Gregor, 2002a, p. 16). Some of the best insight comes from exemplars of design science research. Jones and Gregor (2004) present an understandable
47 format for presentation of the design theory for e-learning.
The
format that they utilize in their paper served as a model for the development of Chapter 4 of this dissertation.
The use of tables to
identify the key areas (i.e., kernel theories, meta-design, etc.) along with narrative to further describe the components of the design theory aids
the
reading
development.
in
understanding
Additional
direction
the
design
theory
was
gleaned
from
and
its
Markus,
Majchrzak, and Gasser (2002) on their design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes not for the theory but for their discussion of the theory development process and as an example of one way to specify a design theory. Codd’s (1970) design theory for the development of relational databases that led to the development of such software products as DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase, and MySQL also served as an example of how to present a design theory. Finally, Walls, Widmeyer, and El Sawy (1992) with their design theory for vigilant executive information systems formalized the process of developing a design theory. dissertation development
are of
modeled this
The constructs presented within this after
design
their
theory
work. is
an
Collectively, amalgam
of
the the
aforementioned works and the processes utilized by the authors of those works.
48 Evaluate Scriven (1967, 1991) presents an often misinterpreted definition of evaluation that consists of two types of evaluation, formative and summative.
Even though taken out of the context of educational
evaluation, Scriven’s scheme serves to describe the evaluative aspects of design research in general and the research of this dissertation specifically.
Scriven (1991) describes formative evaluation as being
“typically conducted during the development of a program or product . . . and it is conducted, often more than once, for the in-house staff of the program with the intent to improve” (pp. 168-169). He states that the “summative evaluation of a program . . .
is conducted after
completion of the program (for ongoing programs, that means after stabilization) and for the benefit of some external audience or decision-maker” (Scriven, 1991, p. 340).
“The distinction between
formative and summative evaluation has been well summed up by Bob Stake: ‘When the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative; when the guests taste the soup, that’s summative’” (Scriven, 1991, p. 169). For the purpose of this dissertation, the formative evaluation is the evaluation that takes place during the development of the design theory and its various incarnations and the development of the instantiations of the design theory.
Summative evaluation in the
context of this research is the evaluation of the use of the
49 instantiations.
Following are descriptions of the methods that were
utilized for each of these two evaluations. Various evaluation methods are used within this dissertation. Ethnographic methods (Amit, 2000; Ellen, 1984; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Grills, 1998; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Stewart, 1998) were utilized to observe and document the observations of the subjects using the dispersed dialogue instantiation.
Specialized
ethnographic methods (Anderson & Kanuka, 2003; Hine, 2000; Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001) were employed specifically for the evaluation of virtual communities and their interactions. Analysis of the written corpus of the dialogue was completed using specific analysis techniques such as corpus linguistics (Meyer, 2002) in which the entire text of the dialogue i.e., the corpus, was analyzed using a number of methods.
These methods included
analysis of the text for readability and lexical density using the Flesch, Flesch/Kincaid Readability Test (Farr, Jenkins, & Paterson, 1951; Flesch, 1948) and the Gunning Fog Index (Gunning, 1969).
A
concordancer was used against the corpus to identify and analyze key words and phrases to determine if certain elements of a Bohmian dialogue (e.g., suspension) were observed. Additional evaluation was performed that included analysis of the corpus for evidence of other aspects of a Bohmian dialogue, i.e., the
50 ability to support tangential discussions, memorialization and reporting of the collective thought, and general observations on the corpus. The reporting on a survey of the participants’ thoughts and feelings about the dialogue and the tool used to facilitate the dialogue will be presented along with anecdotal evidence on the participants’ thoughts and feelings obtained through a collateral source. All of these techniques will be further defined within Chapter 6 where the findings from their use are presented.
Chapter 4 – Development of the Design Theory Information Systems Design Theory (ISDT) for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue This chapter presents the design theory for a dispersed Bohmian dialogue (DBD). It is within this chapter that the main contribution of this dissertation is contained.
Using Walls, et al. (1992, 2004) along with
Jones and Gregor (2004) as guides, the design theory is described by its two aspects, the design product and the design process. “A design theory must have two aspects—one dealing with the product and one dealing with the process of design” (Walls et al., 1992, p. 42).
The design
product of the design theory is presented through its four components (i.e., kernel theories, meta-requirements, meta-design, and testable design product hypotheses) (Walls et al., 1992, pp. 42-43). The design process is presented through its three components (i.e., design method, kernel theories, and testable design process hypotheses) (Walls et al., 1992, p. 43).
A diagram of these elements for this dissertation is
presented in Chapter 3 (Figure 1). Design Product The definition of the design product has four components: the kernel
theories
requirements,
that
the
govern
the
meta-design,
design and
51
the
requirements, testable
the
design
metaproduct
52 hypotheses. Each of these is presented in their own section below, and as a group they serve as the definition of the design product component of the design theory. Kernel Theory for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Product Kernel theories are theories from the “natural or social sciences governing design requirements” (Walls et al., 1992, p. 43).
Bohm’s
description of the dialogue process as memorialized in his book On Dialogue (Bohm, 1996) and his paper Dialogue—A Proposal
(Bohm,
Factor, & Garrett, 1991) serve as the basis for the theory of Bohmian Dialogues (see Table 1).
These two sources were interrogated for the
meta-requirements for a non-dispersed Bohmian Dialogue10 and therefore serve as the kernel theory for the development of the design product. As the meta-requirements are developed, the importance of these two works and the justification of the choice for them as the kernel theory will become clearer. Table 1 – Kernel Theories for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Product ISDT Component Kernel Theories Meta-Requirements (Bohm, 1996; Bohm et al., 1991)
10
The author has found it difficult to create an adequate name for a Bohmian Dialogue that takes place in the mode and manner that Bohm described. The distinction is required to show the different requirement sets between that type of dialogue and the adequately named dispersed Bohmian dialogue. The first thought was traditional or “normal dialogue”, which, after investigation, were misnomers, or a more IS–centric “analog dialogue”, which unfortunately rhymed. Therefore, the traditional Bohmian Dialogue shall be known as a “non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue”.
53 Meta-Requirements for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Product The meta-requirements of a design theory “describe the class of goals to which the theory applies” (Walls et al., 1992, p. 43). meta-requirements were identified for the design product.
Eight
These are
requirements for the size, duration, space, time, leadership, suspension, subject matter, and collective thought aspects of a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue and, if necessary, modified for a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
These eight meta-requirements represent the process of
Bohmian dialogues (e.g., size, duration, space, time, leadership, and suspension) and the content of the dialogue (e.g., subject matter and collective thought). The meta-requirements are shown in Table 2 and are discussed within their own sections below.
Each meta-requirement has
linkages to one or both sources that constitute the kernel theory (i.e., Bohm 1996, Bohm et al. 1991). These meta-requirements represent the core aspects of Bohm’s idea of dialogue.
The core aspects of size,
duration, space, time, leadership, and subject matter are described in the “Engaging in Dialogue” (Bohm, 1996, pp. 17-22) section of On Dialogue; suspending assumptions has its own section (Bohm, 1996, pp. 22-24), as does collective thought (Bohm, 1996, pp. 29-32).
The author decided
that because of the inclusion of collective thought as a meta-requirement, the antecedents of participation in the dialogue, the inclusion of individual
54 thoughts into the dialogue process, and input of their positions do not require specific mention or elevation to meta-requirement status. Table 2 – Meta-Requirements for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue (DBD) Product MR01 A DBD should support a dialogue of at least 20 to 40 participants (size). MR02 A DBD should support a dialogue of sufficient duration as determined by the participants (duration). MR03 A DBD should support a dialogue in multiple and dispersed venues (space). MR04 A DBD should support an asynchronous dialogue (time). MR05 A DBD should support a dialogue that allows self-leadership or no leadership (leadership). MR06 A DBD should support a dialogue that allows suspension of thoughts, impulses, and judgments (suspension). MR07 A DBD should support a dialogue with no subject matter limitations (subject matter). MR08 A DBD should manage and make available the collective thought of the dialogue (collective thought).
Meta-Requirement 1 (MR01) – Size. Size refers to the number of participants in a dialogue.
“A Dialogue
works best with between twenty to forty people seating facing one another in a single circle” (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 5). “A group of about twenty to forty people is almost a microcosm of the whole society” (Bohm, 1996, p. 14). Smaller groups lack the diversity needed to reveal different subgroups or subcultures (Bohm, 1996, p. 15). Larger groups require
two
concentric
circles
that
placed
the
outer
circle
at
a
disadvantage (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 6). However, “it is possible to have a dialogue with one person or with two, three, or four, or you can have the attitude of the dialogue by yourself, as you weigh all the opinions without deciding” (Bohm, 1996, p. 14). Bohm also states that numbers this small do not work very well since the participants tend to find out
55 quickly what subjects upset the others and then tend to stay away from discussing those subjects (Bohm, 1996, pp. 14-15).
The statement of
individual opinions and the discussion of those opinions constitute the content of the dialogue and therefore are assumed to be represented in the memorialization of the content.
No requirement is stated for this
since there is no control over the participants and their acts. There is no stated minimum, although there is a recommended minimum range of 20 to 40 participants. The maximum, however, is a physical limitation. Bohm et al. (1991, p. 6) states, [W]e have had as many as sixty participants, but with that large a number the process becomes unwieldy. Two concentric circles are required to seat everybody so that they can see and hear one another. This places those in the back row at a disadvantage, and fewer participants have an opportunity to speak. In the conceptual view of this process the requirement for a maximum number of participants no longer exists. The stated maximum in Bohm and Bohm et al. was based on physical limitations of the venue and the limiting effect on time allotted for participants to speak.
Considering a
dispersed Bohmian dialogue, especially one of a virtual nature, this limitation is no longer a requirement. The author understands that there are various theoretical maximums, but these maximums support more participants than one would normally engage in a dialogue.
Therefore,
for the purpose of this dissertation, there is no stated maximum but rather a requirement that the dialogue support at least a range of 40 to
56 60 participants to ensure that the limitation specified by Bohm can be exceeded. Meta-Requirement 2 (MR02) – Duration. There are no requirements for a fixed duration of a dialogue. “The point is not to establish a fixed dialogue forever, but rather one that lasts long enough to make a change” (Bohm, 1996, p. 21). It takes some time to get a dialogue going. Some characteristics of success for dialogues are regular meetings since that allows for deeper and more meaningful explorations and no limit on the dialogue’s duration but coupled with the requirement that the dialogue not become fixed or institutionalized since that would be contrary to the spirit of dialogue. One other requirement is that the membership of the dialogue should not be fixed by rule, but open to allow participants to leave and also join (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 6). This requirement is embodied within the duration meta-requirement since the duration has a direct effect on the membership of the dialogue. If one were to have a non-dispersed dialogue of one session, the membership in that dialogue would more probably be static.
However, if one were to
engage in a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue of considerable duration or a
dispersed
Bohmian
dialogue,
the
membership
and
participation
becomes more fluid. Therefore, membership is included in the duration meta-requirement.
Both parts of this meta-requirement (i.e., duration
and membership changes) generated their own testable hypothesis.
57 Meta-Requirement 3 (MR03) – Space. A non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue requires that all participants are in the same physical location at the same time. By the process specified, they are required to be sitting in a circle facing each other (Bohm, 1996, pp. 17-22; Bohm et al., 1991, pp. 5-6).
In the conceptual view of this
process, the requirement for the same place no longer exists. There is no logical requirement for a geographical limitation in a virtual environment. This allows for participation by those incapable of travel.
While this
meta-requirement may appear to some to be a departure from the Bohmian ideal, the author believes the description of the physical setting (i.e., circle facing each other) for a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue represents the best available technology solution for dialogue at that time. Meta-Requirement 4 (MR04) – Time. A non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue requires that all participants are in the same physical location at the same time. By the process specified, they are required to be sitting in a circle facing each other (Bohm, 1996, pp. 17-22; Bohm et al., 1991, pp. 5-6).
In the conceptual view of this
process, the requirement for the dialogue to take place at the same time for all participants no longer exists. There is no logical requirement for a temporal limitation in a virtual environment.
One may ask if there is,
however, a requirement for a synchronous environment for a dialogue to
58 take place in Bohm’s vision. Bohm’s (1996; 1991) work is silent on this. However, the high value that Bohm placed on the silence between the participants’ offerings, it appears that even though the venue may allow for a synchronous conversation, it is not a requirement, but rather a benefit that is available. Bohm (1996, p. 17) was more concerned with having all participants as equals, which is why the circle was used. Since there is no written requirement for a synchronous environment, the benefits
provided
to
the
participants,
outweigh
the
loss
of
the
synchronous environment. This allows for participation at a time of the participants’ choosing which enables global involvement. Meta-Requirement 5 (MR05) – Leadership. “A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. [. . .] Hierarchy has no place in Dialogue” (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 6). controlling authority within the DBD.
There should be no
There should be no inherent,
expected, or implied hierarchy. Meta-Requirement 6 (MR06) – Suspension. Bohm et al. (Bohm et al., 1991, p. 5) state, Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc. lies at the very heart of Dialogue. [. . .] Suspension involves attention, listening and looking and is essential to exploration. . . . the actual process of exploration takes place during listening –
59 not only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also reflected back by others in the group. This act of suspension is the heart of the dialogue. aspect to achieve and the hardest to observe.
It is the hardest
There is a requirement
that this activity can be supported in the instantiation of this design theory. It is incumbent on the participants to support and partake in this activity in a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue. This duty to support and allow suspension is also imposed on the DBD as a system, not as a participant, but as an enabling technology. Meta-Requirement 7 (MR07) – Subject Matter. The initial topic of the dialogue may be predetermined or may be the first item to be covered within the dialogue.
There are no topics that are
excluded. “If some members of the group feel that certain exchanges or subjects are disturbing or not fitting, it is important that they express these thoughts within the Dialogue.
No content should be excluded”
(Bohm et al., 1991, p. 7). Tangential explorations within the dialogue are acceptable. Meta-Requirement 8 (MR08) – Collective Thought. The purpose of dialogue is to explore the wide range of thought and opinions on one or more topics. It is through this process that the truth is obtained. This “truth” may be a statement of the collective thought of
60 the group. This collective thought may not be a unified statement of the truth, but may contain many truths. something.
There are many ways to see
This statement of collective thought should serve as the
synthesis of like thought and sufficiently describe the variances from the like thought. Meta-Design for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Product The meta-requirements have been defined and are listed in Table 2 with the discussion of each of them following the table. Below (see Table 3) are the meta-design features that were formulated from the metarequirements.
Following the table is a discussion of each of the meta-
design features. MD01 MD02 MD03 MD04 MD05 MD06 MD07 MD08 MD09 MD10 MD11 MD12 MD13 MD14 MD15
Table 3 – Meta-Design for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Product Minimum range of 2 to 20 participants. Maximum number of participants as limited by the system with support of at least a range of 40 to 60 participants. The dialogue is not of a fixed or limited duration. Membership in a dialogue is not static. Participants can join or leave the dialogue. The dialogue takes place in virtual space. The dialogue takes place in virtual time. The dialogue takes place without a controlling authority. There is no hierarchy of participants within the dialogue. Suspension of beliefs, thoughts, impulses, and judgments by the participants are supported and allowed. The act of exposing reactions, impulses, feelings, and opinions are reflected back to the group after being seen and felt by the participant. All subject matter is acceptable. Tangential exploration is supported. Collective thought is memorialized. Variation from the collective thought is memorialized. All applicable thought is memorialized.
61 Requirements MD01 and MD02 derive from meta-requirement MR01 (size), which is the meta-requirement relating to the number of participants that can engage in a dialogue. This requirement covers the support for a minimum and a maximum range of participants.
The
system needs to support at least one participant but must support a maximum number of participants in the range of 40 to 60. Obviously, if the high end of the range is supported, the requirement is met. However, the requirement is met if the low end of the range is supported since that number is the expected maximum for a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue. The meta-requirement for the duration of a DBD is specified in MR02, which spawns meta-design features MD03 and MD04.
These
features relate to the length of time that the system shall be capable of supporting the DBD.
The expectation is that a dialogue has a finite
length. The finite nature is unfortunately incalculable. There are many reasons for the termination of a dialogue.
These reasons are not
foreseen at the onset of the dialogue. For the purposes of the system, the duration of the DBD must be indefinite (therefore, we have requirement MD03). Because of the indeterminate length of the DBD, it is possible that the mix of participants may change. Some participants may leave while others may join.
The system needs to allow this and
62 support the fluid nature of the participant mix, which leads to requirement MD04. Meta-requirement MR03 speaks to the nature of the subject of this dissertation, that of the dispersed nature of a Bohmian dialogue.
The
design requirement is simple; the dialogue must take place in virtual space (MD05). Participants may be from anywhere, and as long as they can reach the Internet from their location, they can participate in the dialogue. Meta-requirement MR04 is similarly situated, but in time rather than space. The requirement (MD06) that the DBD takes place in virtual time satisfies the meta-requirement for an asynchronous supported dialogue. Leadership or rather the lack of it is central to the idea of a Bohmian dialogue. This is embodied in meta-requirement MR05. From this meta-requirement flow the two meta-design features MD07 and MD08.
There shall be no controlling authority in the DBD (MD07).
Without controlling authority it should follow that there is no implied hierarchy of members.
However, since it may be possible to create a
hierarchy or class system within the DBD, a requirement is set in place to ensure that no participant hierarchy is inherent in the DBD (MD08). Suspension
of
thoughts,
impulses,
fundamental aspect of a Bohmian dialogue.
and
judgments
are
a
As such, it is a meta-
requirement for a DBD (MR06). MR06 leads to two meta-design features
63 (MD09 and MD10).
These two requirements support the act of
suspension and the ability to reflect back to the other participants and oneself that the suspension occurred. Every dialogue begins with some subject. In many cases, the first subject covered is how the dialogue is to take place. After that, there is some notion of a general subject or topic that begins the dialogue. After the dialogue begins, there may be a tendency for one or more of the participants to change subjects or modify the subject under discussion. While this may appear counter productive, it is counter to the philosophy of a Bohmian dialogue to prohibit or quash this activity.
Two design
features from meta-requirement MR07 are created to ensure the adherence to the philosophy of non-dispersed Bohmian dialogues. MD11 is a requirement that ensures that all subject matter is acceptable. MD12 requires that tangential exploration is allowed within the DBD. Bohm held hope for collective thought (Bohm, 1996, pp. 55-69). The creation of a DBD should not only provide for the general requirements to support the dialogue activities but also enhance the process by memorializing the thoughts of the participants.
This
memorialization should also include the synthesis of the presented ideas. Thus,
meta-requirement
(MR08)
addresses
the
management
availability of the collective thought of the dialogue. requirement generates three meta-design features.
and
This meta-
MD13 ensures that
64 the collective thought is memorialized.
MD14 ensures that all opinions
are available and incorporated into the collective thought, for without it the thought would not be collective.
MD15 ensures that all thoughts
presented in the dialogue are memorialized. Testable Design Product Hypotheses for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue The testable design product hypotheses (Table 4) identify the hypotheses that are to be empirically tested to verify that the metarequirements and meta-design features are within the developed DBD. These hypotheses deal with the functionality available in the developed DBD and the availability of those features to the participants of the DBD. They do not relate in any manner to the quality of the dialogue or the experiences of the participants of the dialogue.
No developed software
can create true dialogue if the participants are either unwilling or unable to conduct one.
65
TDPH01 TDPH02 TDPH03 TDPH04 TDPH05
TDPH06
TDPH07
Table 4 – Testable Design Product Hypotheses It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any number of participants up to a low end maximum of 40 to 60 participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that can support the dialogue process for an extended and indeterminate time. It is feasible to design a DBD system that allows for membership changes. It is feasible to design a DBD system that a participant can utilize at anytime from anywhere with Internet access. It is feasible to design a DBD system that does not require hierarchical arrangement of its participants, which implies no management or control by one or more participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports a participant’s suspension of beliefs, thoughts, impulses, and judgments and allows for their reflection by both the participant doing the suspension and all others in the dialogue. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any subject matter and tangential departures from any subject and memorializes the dialogue showing all dimensions of the collective thought of the participants.
Design Process The definition of the design process has three components: design method, kernel theories, and testable design process hypotheses (Walls et al., 1992, pp. 42-43). Each of these is presented in their own section below, and as a group they serve as the definition of the design process component of the design theory. Kernel Theory for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Process There are limited theories that direct the design process especially in the area of collaboration and any software development. However, the kernel theories identified (see Table 5) have the most impact on this work. Some may not be considered referent theories in the information systems realm, but they were drivers in the development of the instantiation of this DBD.
66
Table 5 – Kernel Theories for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Process ISDT Kernel Theories Component Design WikiWikiWeb (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001; Wagner, 2004); Media Process Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986); Hot and Cold Media (McLuhan, 1964); Hole in the Wall (Mitra, 2005)
The overarching question in proceeding with this work is whether the dialogue that occurs within the proposed DBD is equivalent to a nondispersed Bohmian dialogue.
After the development of an initial
assessment of the technologies available to one wishing to develop a virtual dialogue (see Table 6), it was determined that there was sufficient richness within existing technology to support a dispersed dialogue. The course of action was also developed from this initial technology assessment.
It was determined that the more favorable technology for
the development of a DBD was WikiWikiWeb technology (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001; Wagner, 2004).
67 Table 6 – Initial Applicability of Certain Technologies to Bohmian Dialogues11 Technology Applicability Rationale World Wide Web + More “content push” basically, unidirectional. (WWW) Bulletin Board ++ Has historical archiving of thought but navigation can be limiting. Email + Difficult to communicate to all; late participants miss the previous communications; not a synthesis of thought. Listservs ++ Thread aspect helps with synthesis but can be difficult to navigate effectively. Chat + Too social party-like. Many conversations occurring at the same time. MOO/MUD (Multi ++ These have the problem of the use of avatars, User Dungeon) which lend the possibility of deception to the process. Instant Messaging + Has the same problems as email and chat combined. Immersive Virtual ++ These have great promise but have the same Environments problem as the MOO/MUD with the use of avatars, which lend the possibility of deception to the process. Usenet ++ Has historical archiving of thought but navigation can be limiting. WikiWikiWeb +++ Has historical archiving but the real benefit is the stepwise refinement of the collective thought. Blog + Too one-sided and content push. Conference Calling + Archiving of thought is limited, but is no different than a face-to-face dialogue. Group Decision ++ By their nature (see DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987) Support System are goal-oriented. However, some implementations (GDSS) are may be better suited than others. Video ++ Works well because of the face-to-face feature but Conferencing. can be costly and requires extensive technology (at this time). Archiving of thought is limited, but is no different than a face-to-face dialogue.
11
Source: (Abeygunawardena, 2002; Alavi, 1994; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Anonymous, 2004a, 2004b; Blanchard, 2000; Bostrom, Watson, & Kinney, 1992; Brown, 2002; DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987; Gackenbach, 1998; Guzdial, Rick, & Kerimbaev, 2000; Hafner, 2001; Hine, 2000; Kraemer & King, 1988; Kristoffersen & Ljungberg, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Leuf & Cunningham, 2001; Levine, Locke, Searls, & Weinberger, 2000; Locke, 1998; Lueg & Fisher, 2003; Mattison, 2003; Negroponte, 1995; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Puntambekar, Stylianou, & Hubscher, 2003; Rasmussen, 2000; Renninger & Shumar, 2002; Rheingold, 1993; Schneiderman, 2003; Smith & Kollock, 1999; Turkle, 1995; Valovic, 2000; van Oostendorp, 2003; Wagner, 2004; Wallace, 1999; Walton, 2004; Weinberger, 2002)
68 In making the determination of the feasibility of this project two theories were omnipresent in the author’s thought, those of McLuhan (1964) (i.e., hot and cold media) richness theory).
and Daft and Lengel (1986) (media
However, after the analysis of these theories, while
applicable and interesting, it was determined that they are not as critical to this work as first thought.
Rich media may not be required for the
emotional response analysis. It may even hinder the suspension process. One may have an emotional reaction and being at the same venue as the speaker may invoke an emotional response that was not processed. This begs the question of whether an electronic medium can, while not being classified as rich, invoke strong thoughts in other participants.
The
researcher references one piece of anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that it can. This evidence is a widely reported and studied cyber rape that occurred in a virtual environment, LambdaMOO (Dibbell, 1993). To the victim the trauma was real. The hotness or coldness of the media or its richness had little effect on this event. Even while realizing that this may be one instance, the two media theories have some effect that may be at best a moderating influence and at worst, no effect. Finally, another non-theoretical contribution that affects the process is the experiment titled “the Hole in the Wall” (Mitra, 2005). Sugata Mitra is a physicist with NIIT, a New Delhi based software and education company.
Mitra’s office is located in the southern part of New Delhi.
69 There is a wall that surrounds the NIIT facility.
Within this wall Mitra
created a hole in which he placed a personal computer (PC) that had a high-speed Internet connection. The PC had no keyboard; only a mouse and monitor were visible to the outside world. This part of the wall faces an empty lot that has garbage and is used by the poor of the city as a public bathroom. Mitra, whose passion is computer-based education for India’s poor, leaves the computer on and connected to the Internet allowing anyone at any time to utilize it.
The activity of the users is
monitored through another computer and with video taping of the activity. Mitra found that the most active users were ghetto children from six to twelve years of age with little or no education and almost no knowledge of English. Within a short period of time, the children learned to draw and surf the Internet (Mitra, 2005). This experiment brings to light two things.
First, that the use of computer technology does not
require extensive education; in fact, none, based on this experiment. Second, the experiment also emphasized the very definite and visible digital divide in India, which is considered a rather high-tech oriented country.
The product of the design theory in this dissertation does not
alleviate the problem of the digital divide, it does require that this problem be minimized or resolved to affect the use of dialogue to attempt to resolve international problems.
The instantiation built for this
dissertation was proprietary but available for a minimal cost and can be
70 utilized
for
no
cost12.
However,
the
technologies
used
for
the
development of a similar instantiation are all obtainable for little or no cost (i.e., they are all Open Source software).13 Design Method for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Process The design methods of a design theory are a “description of procedure(s) for artifact construction” (Walls et al., 1992, 43).
Two
design methods are identified for the development of the DBD (see Table 7). The first is the use of the wiki technology developed by Cunningham (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001; Wagner, 2004).
The second design method
is that the development utilizes software that creates a system that can be implemented for little or no cost. MR09 MR10
12
Table 7 – Design Method for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue - Process The development of a DBD is to be done using the WikiWikiWeb technology. The development of a DBD shall be created in a manner that allows its use by a wide audience for little or no cost for the hardware and software to support the system.
There was a cost associated with this instantiation since the researcher needed to keep control of the population and access to the dialogue. The cost, however, was minimal at US$20.00 per month. The same software is available for free but there is no access control to the wiki (i.e., dialogue). 13 The implementation of the wiki used in this instantiation was commercial (i.e., SeedWiki); however, wiki technology is available and can be created on a Windows server environment, the software utilized (i.e., Apache, MySQL, PHP, Smarty, and CSS) can also run on Linux. The only other software that is required is a browser, which is also available for little or no cost. The only real costs for utilizing this system are a computer with adequate processing power and data storage capability and an Internet connection.
71 Testable Design Process Hypotheses for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue The testable design process hypotheses are “used to verify whether the design method results in an artifact which is consistent with the meta-design” (Walls et al., 1992). Two hypotheses are identified for the development of the DBD. The first is concerned with the development of the instantiations using WikiWikiWeb (i.e., wiki) technology. The second hypothesis covers the low cost solution to the development of the instantiations. TDPH08 TDPH09
Table 8 – Testable Design Process Hypotheses It is feasible to develop a DBD system utilizing the technology available with WikiWikiWeb. It is feasible to develop a DBD system that is available for use at low cost.
Summary The design theory of a dispersed Bohmian dialogue is described above using the scheme described by Walls et al. (1992, 2004), Gregor (2002a, 2002b), Gregor and Jones (2003), and Jones and Gregor (2004). A graphical representation of these elements and the traceability from each of these elements to each other is shown in Figure 2.
72 Figure 2 – Elements of a Design Theory for a Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue
Chapter 5 – Determination of the Implementation Platform for the Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue (Instantiation) Introduction After the initial assessment of possible implementation platforms and methods for an artifact of this design theory, it appeared that a wiki was the best choice.
Notwithstanding the initial assessment, an
additional assessment was carried out to ensure the wiki was a viable choice for the instantiation.
This chapter discusses this more detailed
assessment including the development of a framework for this analysis, since the literature of the evaluation of media and its use e.g., McLuhan (1964), Daft and Lengel (1986), and Dennis & Valacich (1999) are lacking in their coverage of recent innovations (e.g., MOO/MUD, wiki, blogs). Evaluation of Possible Implementation Methods A more detailed assessment of the available methods to implement the design theory was undertaken.
This assessment was deemed
necessary when the author experienced difficulty in attempting to utilize two widely accepted views of media (Daft & Lengel, 1986; McLuhan, 1964) to evaluate various media for possible use in the development of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue. Therefore, a framework of five criteria was developed to perform this evaluation.
73
The five criteria are:
74 accessibility, persistence, cardinality, noise, and acclimation.
These
criteria are fully described in the Evaluative Framework section (below). First, a discussion on the two media theories initially used and why they are not applicable to this endeavor. Daft and Lengel (1986, p. 560), in their media richness theory, define information richness as “the ability of information to change understanding within a time interval”.
They
identify five media classifications in decreasing richness “(1) face-to-face, (2) telephone, (3) personal documents such as letters or memos, (4) impersonal written documents, and (5) numeric documents” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 560). They also cite the reasons for the differences in richness as, “the medium’s capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels utilized, personalization, and language variety” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 560). It may be possible to fit the various media made available since 1986 when Daft and Lengel wrote the paper, but it is apparent that some items may not fit into the scheme as easily as the five previously identified media. Based on the meta-requirements, there are additional dimensions guiding the choice of medium than just richness. However, there have been some modifications and extensions to media richness theory with the introduction of media synchronicity theory (Dennis & Valacich, 1999; Dennis, Valacich, Speier, & Morris, 1998).
“Media synchronicity is the extent to which individuals work on
the same activity at the same time; i.e., have a shared focus” (Dennis &
75 Valacich, 1999, p. 5). Media synchronicity theory is based on the thought that all tasks are composed of two fundamental communication processes, conveyance and convergence. Conveyance is the exchange of information, followed by deliberation on its meaning. It can be divergent, in that not all participants need to focus on the same information at the same time, nor must they agree on its meaning. In general, low media synchronicity is preferred for conveyance. Convergence is the development of shared meaning for information. By definition it is convergent, in that participants strive to agree on the meaning of information and agree that they have agreed. This means that participants must understand each other’s views. In general, high synchronicity is preferred for convergence. (Dennis & Valacich, 1999, p. 5) “Communication environments that support high immediacy of feedback and low parallelism encourage the synchronicity that is key to the convergence process.
Communication environments that support low
immediacy of feedback and high parallelism provide the low synchronicity that is key to the conveyance/deliberation process” (Dennis & Valacich, 1999, p. 7).
Parallelism’s importance is dependent on the number of
participants. It would vary on the size of the dialogue and therefore is related to the instance of a specific dialogue and not the supportive process.
A Bohmian dialogue seems to require both convergent and
divergent processes and therefore synchronicity and its measurement varies by instance over time. For this reason, this theory is not used in its entirety for evaluation of the various possible media for non-dispersed
76 Bohmian dialogues.
However, some aspects of these theories were
incorporated into the evaluative framework that is presented below. The choice, because of the meta-requirements, has become multidimensional, rather than the single dimension of McLuhan’s and Deft and Lengel’s theories. The same problem exists with McLuhan’s hot and cold media. McLuhan (1964, pp. 22-23) defines hot and cold media as, There is a basic principle that distinguishes a hot medium like radio from a cool one like the telephone, or a hot medium like the movie from a cool one like TV. A hot medium is one that extends one single sense in “high definition.” High definition is the state of being well filled with data. A photograph is, visually, “high definition.” A cartoon is “low definition,” simply because very little visual information is provided. Telephone is a cool medium, or one of low definition, because the ear is given a meager amount of information. And speech is a cool medium of low definition, because so little is given and so much has to be filled in by the listener. On the other hand, hot media do not leave so much to be filled in or completed by the audience. Hot media are, therefore, low in participation, and cool media are high in participation or completion by the audience. Even though McLuhan’s idea indicates a spectrum of values rather than a binary (e.g., hot or cold), it is still one dimensional. McLuhan could not have forecast the new media that may be difficult to fit within his theory. It is because of the addition of these new media and the difficulty evaluating the possible use of one of these media in the construction of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue on these one dimensional constructs that the following evaluative framework is proffered.
Even though partially
dismissed in the evaluation process, all platform options are described in
77 terms of McLuhan’s hot/cold medium, media richness, and media synchronicity (see Table 5.2).
Evaluative Framework This framework is designed for the evaluation of the various media that could possibly support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
The
evaluation of these media is performed below after the introduction of the framework.
The framework consists of five dimensions: accessibility,
persistence, cardinality, noise, and acclimation. Each of these dimensions is explained in the following sections.
A summary table (Table 5.1)
appears at the end of the individual sections identifying the five dimensions, their possible values or value ranges, and, for the purpose of developing a dispersed Bohmian dialogue based on the design theory, the desired value. Accessibility The digital divide is a known problem (Clinton & Gore, 1996)14. There are people who have access to technology, specifically the Internet, and there are people who do not.
It is an economic problem; it is a
regional problem; it is a global problem; and it is an ethnic problem. Accessibility is the measurement of how obtainable is the underlying technology to a possible audience.
14
For example, if a proprietary video
This is considered the first public use of the term digital divide in this context, although there were some random mentions of the term beforehand.
78 conference system was chosen for the dialogue, only those people with the software, hardware, infrastructure, and money for acquisition and support could participate.
Therefore, the accessibility would be low.
However, if the chosen technology was basic Internet access (even low speed dial-up access) with a browser serving as a thin client, the accessibility would be higher. There are those that still do not have a basic Internet connection, even a low bandwidth connection. For these people, all choices would be considered a low accessibility.
It is hoped that this global situation is
changing. However, the measurement is made on entry-level technology being the floor of the measurement. Therefore, if the system can run on a basic computer with even limited Internet access, the system is considered to have high accessibility. Persistence Persistence is the ability for the communication occurring on the technology to last past the time of the conversation. For example, absent a recording device, if one passes a person on the street and strikes up a conversation, it is assumed that the conversation is not memorialized past
its
occurrence,
communication
would
except
in
therefore
the have
participants’ a
low
memory.
persistence.
That If
the
communication were recorded by one or both of the participants, the conversation would then have a high persistence.
79 Cardinality The idea of cardinality is similar to the concept of the same name within the database area.
However, unlike the other four dimensions,
this dimension has a finite number of values rather than a spectrum of values.
The finite values are identical to their database counterparts.
There are three possible values: one-to-one (1:1), one-to-many (1:m), and many-to-many (m:m). However, one modification to this scheme is required.
Each of the values for this dimension is two values, one is
limited by time and the other is not limited by time. For example, if one writes an email to five people, the cardinality is 1:m but it is limited by time.
There can not be an addition of a new participant to that
communication since that communication was sent to only those five people. However, if one wrote the same email and placed it on a blog, the audience for that entry could increase from the initial scope of the audience. This dimension measures the ability of the medium to expand its initial audience without an overt act (e.g., forward of an email, repeating a verbal statement) by the person communicating the initial communication. The extensions to these values are referred to as 1:1limT, 1:mlimT, and m:mlimT. possibility of six values.
Therefore, the cardinality dimension has a
80 Noise The noise dimension provides an indication of the relative level of distraction in the communication.
This dimension identifies the level
inherent in the communication method and is not a measurement of a distinct
contact
or
communication
instance.
An
example
of
a
communication of low noise is a telephone call in which one party communicates to another without the distraction of others talking.
An
example of high noise communication is a group gathering in which there are many distinct conversations that are audible to all parties that interfere with a given conversation. This distraction causes interference in the communication. Acclimation Acclimation is the measurement of availability and ease in joining an online group and determining the current state of the collective knowledge.
If one walks into a party, it is difficult to determine the
collective knowledge unless each member of the party is interviewed. This would represent an acclimation value of non-existent to low. Using a newsgroup or listserv as an example, it is possible to determine the current state of the collective knowledge, but it would require a great deal of time since it would require that each post be read. represents an acclimation value of low to moderate.
This situation
81 Summary Using the framework presented above, the desirable values in evaluating a dispersed Bohmian dialogue for each of the dimensions were determined. The following table (Table 9) represents the dimensions, the possible values for each dimension, and the desirable value for each of the dimensions. Table 9 – Evaluation Framework Dimensions
Dimension Possible Values Desirable Value15 Accessibility Low … High High Persistence Low … High High 1:1 & 1:1limT 1:m & 1:mlimT Cardinality m:m m:m & m:mlimT Noise Low … High Low Acclimation Low … High High
Application of the Framework The instantiation built based on the design theory presented within this dissertation required a platform. Given the requirement of a virtual environment, this choice is constrained. The constraint comes from the requirement that this technology and the dialogue are easily obtainable globally.
Imposing a custom software solution requires capital for
building the system and its distribution. It makes more sense, given the desired use by developing countries, to proceed using open source 15
The desirability of a value for a dimension is governed by the use of a tool for a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. The characteristics of a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue would be different. The removal of the temporal and geographical constraints requires a different set of characteristics (e.g., persistence).
82 software that can be obtained for little or no cost.
However, for the
purpose of an evaluation, the technology platforms that are available that have previously been used for communication are included.
These
platforms are evaluated within the previously discussed framework. Available Platforms16 Each of the considered platforms is briefly described below.
The
results of the evaluation are presented in tabular form (see Table 5.2). No explanation of the scoring is presented since the dimensions are rather obvious; however, when needed explanations are presented via footnotes of the table. Blog A blog is a web log or, basically, a diary that is kept on the web. Blogs can be private or, in most cases, public. (Downes, 2004; Hafner, 2001; Long & Baecker, 1997; Powazek, 2002; Rheingold, 1993; Wagner, 2003) Bulletin Boards A bulletin board system, sometimes referred to as a BBS, is defined as, “a computer that is running software that allows users to leave messages and access information of general interest” (Howe, 2005).
(Hafner,
2001; Long & Baecker, 1997; Powazek, 2002; Rheingold, 1993)
16
The citations shown after each platform description are the references utilized for the determination of the applicability of the platform.
83 Conference Call A conference call is defined as a telephone call in which more than two people participate (Howe, 2005). (Long & Baecker, 1997) Email Email is “a system of world-wide electronic communication in which a computer user can compose a message at one terminal that is generated at the recipient's terminal when he logs in” (Howe, 2005).
(Finch,
Coenen, Bench-Capon, & Shave, 1996; Hafner, 2001; Keil & Johnson, 2002; Lee, 1994; Long & Baecker, 1997; Markus, 1994; Nakamura, 2002; Pemberton, 1996; Powazek, 2002; Rheingold, 1993; Smith & Kollock, 1999; Turkle, 1995; Vallee, 2003; Veerman, 2002; Wallace, 1999) File Transfer Protocol (FTP) A “protocol that allows users to copy files between their local system and any system they can reach on the network” (Howe, 2005).
(Long &
Baecker, 1997; Rheingold, 1993) Group Decision Support System (GDSS) A group decision support system (GDSS) combines “communication, computer, and decision technologies to support problem formation and solution
in
group
meetings”
(DeSanctis
&
Gallupe,
1987,
589).
(DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987; George, Easton, Nunamaker, & Northcraft, 1990)
84 Instant Messaging/Internet Relay Chat (IRC)/ICQ/Chat Internet Relay Chat or IRC or just chat is defined as “a worldwide ‘party line’ network that allows one to converse with others in real time. IRC is structured as a network of Internet servers, each of which accepts connections
from
client
programs,
one
per
user”
(Howe,
2005).
(Churchill, Snowdon, & Munro, 2001; Long & Baecker, 1997; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Rheingold, 1993; Snowdon, Churchill, & Frecon, 2004; Turkle, 1995; Vallee, 2003; Veerman, 2002; Wallace, 1999) MUD/MOO A MUD or Multi-User Dimension originally "Multi-User Dungeon" is “a class of virtual reality experiments accessible via the Internet. These are realtime chat forums with structure; they have multiple ‘locations' like an adventure game, and may include combat, traps, puzzles, magic, a simple economic system, and the capability for characters to build more structure onto the database that represents the existing world” (Howe, 2005). A MOO or MUD Object Oriented is “one of the many MUD spinoffs (e.g., MUSH, MUSE, and MUX) created to diversify the realm of interactive text-based gaming. A MOO is similar to a MUSH in that the users themselves can create objects, rooms, and code to add to the environment” (Howe, 2005).
(Churchill et al., 2001; Dieberger, 2003;
Gibbs, 1998, 2002; Hine, 2000; Hook, Benyon, & Munro, 2003; Long & Baecker, 1997; Nakamura, 2002; O'Day, Bobrow, & Shirley, 1998;
85 Pankoke-Babatz, Klockner, & Phillip, 1999; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Raikundalia, 1999; Rheingold, 1993; Robbins-Sponaas & Nolan, 2005; Smith & Kollock, 1999; Snowdon et al., 2004; Turkle, 1995; Vallee, 2003; Wallace, 1999) Newgroups/Listservs A newsgroup is defined as “one of Usenet's huge collection of topic groups or fora. Usenet groups can be ‘unmoderated’ (anyone can post) or ‘moderated’ (submissions are automatically directed to a moderator, who edits or filters and then posts the results)” (Howe, 2005).
(Hine,
2000; Long & Baecker, 1997; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Rheingold, 1993; Smith & Kollock, 1999; Turkle, 1995; Veerman, 2002; Wallace, 1999; Whittaker, Terveen, Hill, & Cherny, 2003) Usenet Usenet or "Usenet news", from "Users' Network" is both “a distributed bulletin board system and the people who post and read articles thereon. Originally implemented in 1979 - 1980 at Duke University, and supported mainly by Unix machines, it swiftly grew to become international in scope and, before the advent of the World-Wide Web, probably the largest decentralized information utility in existence” (Howe, 2005). Newsgroups above.
See also
(Fisher, 2003; Fisher & Lueg, 2003; Pfaffenberger,
2003; Snowdon et al., 2004)
86 Video Conferencing Video conferencing is “a discussion between two or more groups of people who are in different places but can see and hear each other using electronic communications.
Pictures and sound are carried by the
telecommunication network and such conferences can take place across the world” (Howe, 2005).
(Fischer & Mandl, 2003; Long & Baecker,
1997; Vallee, 2003) Virtual Environments Virtual environments are those environments created using virtual reality and are “a computer-based representation of a space in which users can move their viewpoint freely in real time” (Davis, 1996, p. 3). (Churchill et al., 2001; Hook et al., 2003; Long & Baecker, 1997; Rheingold, 1993; Sallnas, 2002; Schroeder, 2002; Turkle, 1995) Web Chat See Internet Relay Chat (IRC) above. WikiWikiWeb (Wiki) A wiki is a type of computer mediated communication (CMC) system that provides for collaboration by allowing all users to edit the content and navigation of a web site.
For more on a wiki, see the expanded wiki
section below. (Dieberger & Guzdial, 2003; Fisher, 2003; Gupta, 2005; Lamb, 2004; Leuf & Cunningham, 2001; Mattison, 2003; O'Neill, 2005;
87 Olfman, Raman, & Stager, 2005; Read, 2005; Schneider, 2004; Wagner, 2004) WWW/Websites/Webpages The World-Wide Web (WWW, W3, and The Web) is “an Internet clientserver hypertext distributed information retrieval system which originated from the CERN High-Energy Physics laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland. On the WWW everything (documents, menus, and indices) is represented to the user as a hypertext object in HTML format. Hypertext links refer to other documents by their URLs17.
The client program (known as a
browser), runs on the user's computer and provides two basic navigation operations: to follow a link or to send a query to a server. A variety of client and server software is freely available” (Howe, 2005).
(Long &
Baecker, 1997; Rheingold, 1993) Platform Evaluation The above platforms were evaluated on the five dimensions of the previously described evaluative framework.
Each of the platforms and
their evaluations are shown in Table 10 (below).
17
URL = Uniform Resource Locator, it is also become known as a “web address.”
88 Table 10 – Platform Evaluation Platform
Blog Bulletin Boards Conference Calls Email File Transfer Protocol (FTP) Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) Instant Messaging/IRC MUD/MOO Newsgroups/Listservs Usenet Video Conferencing Virtual Environments Web Chat WikiWikiWeb (Wiki) WWW/Website/Webpages
Platform
Accessibility
Persistence
Cardinality
Noise
Acclimation
High High High High High
High High Low High High
1:MlimT M:M 1:MlimT 1:MlimT 1:M
Low Low Medium Low Low
Medium Medium Low Low Low
Low
High
M:M
Low
Medium
High Medium High High Low Medium High High Low18
Low Low High High Low Low Low High High
M:MlimT M:MlimT 1:MlimT 1:MlimT M:MlimT M:MlimT M:MlimT M:M 1:M
High Medium Low Low Medium Medium High Low Low
Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Medium
McLuhan Hot/Cold Medium
Media Richness
Media Synchronicity
Cool Warm Cool Cool Warm
Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-High Medium Low
Low/High Low High Low/High Low
Warm
Medium
Low/High
Cool Cool Warm Warm Cool Hot Cool Tepid Warm
Medium Medium-High Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-High Medium-High Medium Medium Medium-Low
High High Low Low High High High Low/High Low
Blog Bulletin Boards Conference Calls Email File Transfer Protocol (FTP) Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) Instant Messaging/IRC MUD/MOO Newsgroups/Listservs Usenet Video Conferencing Virtual Environments Web Chat WikiWikiWeb (Wiki) WWW/Website/Webpages
Summary A number of alternatives are viable for the platform to support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. 18
It is clear that a WikiWikiWeb (Wiki) is
This instance of this dimension was given a low value because of the technological sophistication required to support a website. A website is neither a convenient nor accessible communication platform.
89 superior given the additional consideration that it is all open source software and therefore more accessible because of the low cost. Additionally, there is an overriding ease-of-use to the wiki.
The wiki
pages, which is the area in which the DBD will be supported, has a WYSIWYG19 editor. computer users.
This makes it accessible to less sophisticated
Therefore, the instantiation of the dispersed Bohmian
dialogue will use a wiki.
19
WYSIWYG is an acronym for What You See Is What You Get.
Chapter 6 – Construction of the Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue (Instantiation) Introduction This chapter discusses the concept and definition of a wiki, its history, and some of its uses in the corporate and academic world. The chapter then introduces the specific wiki implementation (i.e., Seedwiki) that served as the instantiation used for evaluation of the proffered design theory. Finally, the chapter discusses the use of Seedwiki for this research, namely, how the research was initially constructed, the participants and how the participants were prepared to be subjects of the research, and the timeline of activities of this research up to the evaluation of the data collected. WikiWikiWeb (Wiki) A wiki is a type of computer mediated communication (CMC) system that provides for collaboration by allowing all users to edit the content and navigation of a web site.
The first wiki was developed by
Cunningham as a set of web pages created and maintained very quickly with a limited and simple mark-up language (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). In fact, the term wiki originates from the Hawaiian term meaning quick. The difference between a wiki and a normal set of web pages (or web site) is the ability of all users to create and edit easily all aspects of the 90
91 site (i.e., content and navigation), providing an open source approach to content. Upon hearing of the open source content nature of wikis, many people have one of two reactions: (1) an expectation that a “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968) will occur, or (2) a fear that malicious behaviors will occur.
However, wikis work.
The process of stepwise
refinement (Wirth, 1971) of a previous post (i.e., new wiki page) creates an overall better product. The reasons wikis work is not in the scope of this research; however, the assumption that they do underlies this research.20 The technical background and the general use of a wiki as a collaboration tool is also not in the scope of this research; however, Wagner (2004) discusses the technical concepts and the use of a wiki as a collaboration and knowledge management tool. A wiki can perform as a knowledge management system (KMS) (Raman, 2005; Raman, Ryan, & Olfman, 2005). This use supports the collection and memorialization of the collective knowledge of a group or in the case of this dissertation, a dialogue.
Wikis have also been used in educational settings (Lamb,
2004; O'Neill, 2005; Olfman, Raman, & Stager, 2005; Raman et al., 2005; Read, 2005), in support of software development (Egger, 1999), developing semantic webs for e-government (Wagner, Cheung, Ip, & Bottcher, 2006), and as an albeit, short-lived, editorial page for the Los
20
A web page describes the reasons that a wiki works (TikiWiki.org, 2004a).
92 Angeles Times (Gaffin, 2005; Los Angeles Times, 2005). The use of wikis has become more mainstream with the publication of their use in the Wall Street Journal (Swisher & The Wall Street Journal, 2004), Forbes (Brown & Forbes.com, 2004), and Time (Taylor & Time.com, 2005).
However,
not everyone is enthralled with wikis, especially the use of a wiki in its most visible implementation, Wikipedia (Schneider, 2004). Seedwiki – The Wiki Used for the Instantiation Introduction Once the decision was made to utilize a wiki to support the dispersed Bohmian dialogue, the search for an appropriate wiki began. There were some basic choices to be made.
The first was whether to
host the wiki or to find a service, also known as a wiki farm, to host the wiki.
“A ‘wiki farm’ is a server or an array of servers that provides
hosting for a wiki, or a group of wikis hosted on such servers” (Comparison_of_wiki_farms, 2007). The other alternative was to host the wiki on either a Claremont Graduate University School of Information Systems and Technology server or one of the servers at Chapman University. To host the wiki would have required additional work by the researcher to support the wiki software and hardware. It would also be limited by the access determined by the hosting institution.
Therefore,
93 the choice was to implement the dispersed Bohmian dialogue on a wiki that was resident at a wiki farm. Seedwiki was chosen as the infrastructure to implement the wiki. The reasons for this were the ability to limit participation21 in the wiki by password, the ability to assign unique identifiers for all the participants (for use in the class, not required for the research), the presence of the wiki on the Internet thereby not limiting its use geographically or temporally, and the relatively low cost of operation (i.e., it could have been free but the use of a password required a paid subscription of $20 per month for the entire wiki, not for each participant).
Seedwiki was
developed by Ken Tyler and Stephan Branczyk of 8th Fold. They write: We started seedwiki in late 2001. It grew out of our interest in extreme programming and lean web practices. For several years it was a free site. Eventually we introduced paid accounts for content privacy and advanced features. seedwiki is a wiki, a site where everyone is a contributor. It [sic] also an environment that can be easily adapted and customized to create almost any kind of website a group of people might need, and the people who are going to use the site can design it and build it themselves. This is how seedwiki itself changes. The people who are using it find new things they want to do and we make the changes that make it possible to do those things. seedwiki is owned and operated by 8th Fold, a consulting company. As well as adapting seedwiki to be a useful site on the web we help companies and organizations build their own useful applications on the web. We use seedwiki as a platform so that the people who need the application can do most of 21
Limiting involvement is not normally done in a wiki environment. It was done in this environment because of the educational component and the antecedent requirement that all participants knew the concept of a Bohmian dialogue.
94 the work of designing and building it themselves, and so that when their application needs to change they know how to change it. Our experience running seedwiki as a public site helps us offer our consulting clients an ever more powerful and useable environment. Our work with out [sic] consulting clients help us to extend and deepen the things that it is possible to do on seedwiki (Tyler & Branczyk, 2007). Wiki Functionality To support a dialogue, the wiki chosen must have minimally: the ability to allow ease of editing (preferably with a WYSIWYG editor), to allow modifications and creation of navigation, and the ability to interrogate the wiki to ascertain the content and perform analyses on that content. Seedwiki possessed all of these functions. In this section, the functionality of wikis, generally, and Seedwiki, specifically are covered in more depth. The function that most people first think of when contemplating a wiki are the wiki pages. Wiki pages are the heart of a wiki system, within which hypertext embedding and linking are the most refined and useful functions.
It is through linking of recorded knowledge that a wiki can
represent understanding and interconnectedness.
Even though some
implementations of wikis include other functionality, all other components of a wiki are utility functions, without which the wiki can survive and still maintain its usefulness.
Within wiki pages, one creates content and
relates it to other content. Interrelating content is done with hypertext, which is implemented in a wiki using WikiWords. WikiWords are just as
95 they are written, smashed together words using camel case. Camel case is the use of at least two uppercase letters separated from each other in a “word” (i.e., character string). WikiWords.
For example, “wiki words” would be
“Isaac Newton” would be IsaacNewton.
In the wiki
implementation for this research (i.e., Seedwiki), two other options are available that impeded less on the readability of the text. The use of a square bracket on each side of the word (e.g., “[word]”) or phase (e.g., “[word phrase]”) made that into a hypertext element (i.e., a page in the wiki) or a function (i.e., “New Page”) that is available from the menu bar of any wiki page or as an option of the directory page. The creation of a wiki page is done in one of these manners, and then the editing of the page is done by invoking an editing function (McBreen, 2003; Tyler & Branczyk, 2007). Other formatting capabilities are available, including underlining, bolding, headings, text in box, external links, centering, etc. These are all accomplished through the WYSIWYG editor.
Additionally, the wiki
provides a history of all edits. Any wiki page can be rolled back to any point in its life from the date of its creation until the latest edit. Also, this allows one to invoke a provided “diff” (i.e., difference) function that will display the difference between an older version and the most recent. (Tyler & Branczyk, 2007)
96 Finally, there was a need to have the wiki support the downloading of the contents of the wiki along with the navigation. These two elements are essential for the analysis of the wiki as the instantiation of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue. The evaluation of the data provided by this instantiation and the analysis of the use of this instantiation as a test of the proffered design hypotheses are provided in Chapter 7. The Instantiation Commencement of Research The concepts of Bohmian Dialogues, wikis, and the possibility of conducting research in classes at Chapman University were first discussed with the researcher’s classes on March 30, 2006 and March 31, 2006. Both class sections were polled to determine the level of interest in participating in the research. Every student was given the opportunity to “opt out” of participating and then would continue the class as described in the syllabus (i.e., at this point in the class, four weekly essays and a final test remained). Those who wished to participate were relieved of the essay and test requirements but had to actively participate in the dialogue. All students decided to participate and were given the approved Informed Consent document (see Appendix 3) to review and sign. It was determined, before obtaining signatures from the students, that all participants were over 18 years of age.
97 Each of the two sections was presented with the same lecture (see Appendix 2) to introduce the concept of a wiki and the conduct of a Bohmian Dialogue. The wiki was created and the seed questions were placed on the wiki at approximately one week intervals. Figure 3 identifies the milestones of the research.
Figure 3. Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue Timeline
Participants The participants in this evaluation of a dispersed Bohmian dialogue were students in two sections of the same undergraduate Management Science class (i.e., MGSC300 Management Information Systems) that the author taught for the Argyros School of Business and Economics at Chapman University in Orange, California. This class is the introductory course for Management Information Systems (MIS) at an AACSB22 accredited business school.
There is no MIS major at this business
school; therefore, all students are non-MIS majors. 22
This class is a
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB).
98 required class for the Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration and other Bachelor degrees offered by the School of Business. All participants in the Bohmian dialogue were members of the Management Science class at Chapman University in the Spring Term of 2006.
The class consisted of two sections (i.e., Tuesday/Thursday and
Friday).
For the purpose of this dissertation and Bohmian dialogue the
largest obtainable population was sought; therefore, the two sections were combined in the same Bohmian dialogue. There was a rather equal split across gender (see Table 1) among the 54 participants. Table 11. Gender Distribution of the Participants
Gender Frequency Percent Female 26 48.1 Male 28 51.9 Total 54 100.0 The Introduction to MIS course (i.e., MGSC300) is an upper-division core requirement in the School of Business at Chapman University. It would, therefore, normally be taken in the junior year. The students involved in this research were members of this class and participated in one of two sections that the researcher taught. school is shown in Table 12.
The distribution of their year in
99
Table 12. Year in School Distribution of the Participants
Year in School Frequency Percent Freshman (Year 1) 1 1.9 Sophomore (Year 2) 18 33.3 Junior (Year 3) 31 57.4 Senior (Year 4) 4 7.4 Total 54 100.0 Table 13 shows the distribution of the majors of the students that participated in this research. The Chapman University School of Business has an Accounting major along with a general Business Administration major, in which, a student can pursue an emphasis in an aspect of business administration. Table 13. Major Field of Study Distribution of the Participants
Major Field and Emphasis Accounting Business Administration Business Administration Business Administration Business Administration Business Administration Business Administration Business Administration History Did not answer Total
Frequency Percent 8 14.8 No emphasis 23 42.5 Economics 1 1.9 Entrepreneurship 4 7.4 Finance 4 7.4 International Business 5 9.2 Management 1 1.9 Marketing 6 11.1 1 1.9 1 1.9 54 100.0
Most of the students in this class were considered in the traditional age group for undergraduate education. ages of the students.
Table 14 shows the distribution of
100
Table 14. Age Distribution of the Participants
Age Range Frequency Percent Under 18 0 0.0 18 – 21 40 74.1 22 – 24 7 13.0 25 – 29 3 5.6 30 – 39 1 1.9 40 – 49 0 0.0 50 – 59 0 0.0 60 and over 0 0.0 Did not answer 3 5.6 Total 54 100.0 All participants agreed to participate for the purpose of the class and for the purpose of the research.
All participants who agreed to
participate were graded on their submissions.
The scoring of their
contributions was binary (i.e., they made a contribution for the period in question or they did not). There were four periods of approximately one week of discussion although there was no formal break between the periods or an end date.
In fact, the participants were encouraged to
discuss anything and to continue discussions past the evaluation time. The periods were developed for evaluative purposes. Each period commenced with a set of questions to stimulate participation. Because of the subject matter of the course, the questions or statements were related to some aspect of information technology. Each question or statement was constructed to elicit a range of responses by presenting an idea or concept that was somewhat polarizing.
101 Weekly Seeding Questions Week One Questions were chosen from Thomas A. Easton’s Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society (2nd edition). Question One
Will the Information Revolution Benefit Society? To present this idea, we turn to John S. Mayo for the affirmative and to James H. Snider for the negative. The Issue: YES: "The information revolution will benefit society by slowing migrations from rural to urban areas, aiding economic development, and improving access to education, health care, and other social services." NO: "Because the information superhighway will make it possible for more people to leave the city for rural areas, human impact on the environment will become more pervasive and more difficult to control." Please comment on either or both of these two views of the question or add your own.
Question Two
[CORPUS: W02/2:14]23 Will It Be Possible to Build a Computer That Can Think? To present this idea, we turn to Hans Moravec for the affirmative and to John R. Searle for the negative. The Issue: YES: "The necessary steps in what he considers to be the inevitable development of computers that match and exceed human intelligence." He describes this evolution
23
For references to the corpus of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue, the following scheme is used: offset in square brackets is the word “CORPUS” followed by a colon, the shorthand name for the wikipage (e.g., A01), a slash (i.e., “/”), and the line number or numbers of the reference. Where there is a range of numbers a colon separates the beginning from the end number.
102 in the following steps and when he expects them to occur: 1. 2. 3. 4.
The Dumb Robot (2000-2010) Learning (2010-2020) Imagery (2020-2030) Reasoning (2030-2040) (Easton, 1997, p. 210-217)
NO: "Searle argues that a crucial difference between artificial (machine) intelligence and human intelligence--that humans attach meaning to the symbols they manipulate while computers cannot---makes it impossible to create a computer that can think" (Easton, 1997, p. 210) Please comment on either or both of these two views of the question or add your own. Also, feel free to embed questions that I or someone else can answer. [CORPUS: W03/2:21] Week Two The movie Revolution OS was shown to both classes to introduce the development of Unix and the Open Source movement.
The first
question came from that movie; the second question came from the May 2006 issue of Wired magazine. Question One
Is Open Source the Future of Software Development? We observed the ideas of Open Source software development in the movie Revolution OS. Is it plausible that this model of software development can work? Should commercial software users embrace open source? Is it reasonable to build a company around open source software? Is the open source movement just a blip or is it here to stay? In attempting to understand this you may wish to Google some of the players and/or review their websites. I have
103 listed these below. www.opensource.org sourceforge.net Bruce Perens
perens.org
Richard Stallman Eric Raymond Linus Torvalds Question Two
www.stallman.org
www.catb.org/~esr/ www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/tolvalds/
[CORPUS: W05/1:15] RFID and Ethics? In the current (May 2006) issue of Wired magazine, there is an article, "While You Were Reading This, Someone Ripped You Off". In this article, RFID (Radio-Frequency IDentification) chips are discussed. Also discussed is the ease in which someone with the correct technology can reprogram the chip or take the information. The author has a chip implanted in his arm. He then goes to a friend that obtains the "secured" chip's information within 10 minutes. These chips are touted as the best security, replacing key cards for secured areas, etc. However, as seen in the article, they are not as secure as they are described. A few things to think about and discuss: Some people have these chips in their pets (including me) and there are those that believe that they should also be implanted in children. With the ease of obtaining the ids from these chips and possibly reprogramming them, it would be easy to "snatch" a child by changing its id on the chip so when the real parents try to identify the child via the chip, it would not match. Please consider the ethical, legal, moral, and common sense issues surrounding the implantation of chips, there use, and misuse.
104 [CORPUS: W06/1:20]
Week Three The third week’s topics came from the technology section of cnn.com (Business 2.0) and Fortune magazine. Question One
What is this thing called Second Life? "Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by nearly 100,000 people from around the globe." What is not said is that it costs money to buy "land." However, money can be made. Even though the currency is in "Linden Dollars" there are people converting the currency to US$ or Euros. I have added three links below. The first is to the Second Life site. The second and third links are to articles on second life and one of the main players of Second Life (who, by the way, makes a six-figure income doing so). Please investigate Second Life. Look at it from the social aspects (e.g., virtual versus real worlds) and from the business potential (i.e., as a player, real estate investor, advertiser-real one of course-just think of putting in land with ads for Pepsi or BMWs). Critically examine this idea and how, if at all, it related to the real world, or is it just an extension of the real world? Discuss any aspects that you find interesting. http://secondlife.com/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_ar chive/ 2005/12/01/8364581/index.htm?cnn=yes http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b 3982001.htm
105 [CORPUS: W08/1:23]
Question Two
The start of biometric payments. "Buying groceries with the touch of a finger could be closer than you think, if new research touting the benefits of biometric payment for retail giants like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco is anything to go by." Well, biometrics are starting to appear. Once their use was for security, but it is now possible to use your fingerprint as you credit card, or better yet (from the stores' point-of-view) your checking account (because of lower fees). Read through the article from Fortune magazine and evaluate the use of biometrics and the financial, social, and legal aspects of this technology. Remember that technology has two sides to it. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/magazines/fortune/plu ggedin_fortune_biometrics/index.htm [CORPUS: W09/1:14]
Week Four For the fourth week, the participants were asked for questions. A list of eleven questions were obtained and added to the wiki.
Some of
them were more successful than the others.
For this week. Let's try something new. Please propose something in which you are interested. I have added links below to new pages. Please add additional ones if required. Also, mimic the other weeks by putting a title next to the link. Follow the link to the topic page and explain the topic or question. Week Four-Topic One
The Myspace Controversy
Week Four-Topic Two
Y2K vs. 666
106 Week Four-Topic Three Folding Paper... Week Four-Topic Four Why are we exploring space Week Four-Topic Five Summer Vacation Week Four-Topic Six: Does Chapman University Use Technology Successfully Week Four-Topic Seven: Does This Outfit Make Me Look Fat Week Four-Topic Eight: Should I still be living with my Parents Week Four-Topic Nine: Good Luck on Finals Week Four- Topic Ten: procrastination is a problem i have Week Four-Topic Eleven: Windows Vista for Gaming [CORPUS: W10/2:18] Completion of the Research After the end of the term, the wiki was closed for entries and the entire wiki content (hereinafter, the corpus) was captured, indexed by wiki page name, and the content was line numbered for ease of reference (see Appendix 7).
The corpus was free coded to identify interesting
examples of Bohmian dialogue and other communicative forms.
The
main sections of the corpus were analyzed to determine the type of communication that was established, the level of the communication based on the population communicating, and the appropriateness of the communication within a Bohmian dialogue. Additionally, a survey was presented on the last days of the classes (see Appendix 4).
One additional unexpected source of insight came
107 from the written comments on the students’ evaluation of the class and instructor. All of these items are used in the evaluation of the instantiation of the design theory and the underlying question of can a Bohmian dialogue take place with an information system built on the design theory and did one take place in this experiment. following chapter (i.e., Chapter 7).
These results are presented in the
Chapter 7 – Evaluation of the Instantiations Introduction The instantiation developed using the design theory presented in this dissertation was evaluated in the following manner: (1) a group was established and trained in the concepts of Bohmian dialogues and the use of a wiki, specifically Seedwiki, for the purpose of conducting a dispersed Bohmian dialogue using the instantiation as specified in the design theory; (2) the use of the instantiation and how it performed as a dispersed
Bohmian
dialogue
according
to
the
design
theory
was
determined by the testable design hypotheses that were developed as part of the design theory; (3) the dispersed Bohmian dialogue was evaluated by reviewing the written record of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue (i.e., the corpus) and, using established textual analysis techniques, evaluating how the instantiation was used and how effective it was as a Bohmian dialogue; (4) a post hoc survey on the use of the wiki as a dispersed Bohmian dialogue was performed and analyzed, and (5) evaluation, through a close reading of the corpus, how well the instantiation performed as support for a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. A graphical representation of the components of the evaluation is shown as Figure 4.
108
109 Figure 4 – Evaluation of the Instantiation (Design Theory Artifact)
Evaluation of the Testable Hypotheses During the development of the design theory for dispersed Bohmian dialogues, nine (9) testable design hypotheses (see Table 15) were identified. It is the evaluation of the instantiation through the lens of the nine testable design hypotheses that is reported below. For each of the hypotheses, the evidence evaluated is presented along with the analysis and conclusion. conclusions.
These sections are followed by a summary of the
110
TDPH01 TDPH02 TDPH03 TDPH04 TDPH05
TDPH06
TDPH07
TDPH08 TDPH09
Table 15 – Testable Design Hypotheses It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any number of participants and minimally 40 participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that can support the dialogue process for an extended and indeterminate time. It is feasible to design a DBD system that allows for membership changes. It is feasible to design a DBD system that a participant can utilize at anytime from anywhere with Internet access. It is feasible to design a DBD system that does not require hierarchical arrangement of its participants, which implies no management or control by one or more participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports a participant’s suspension of beliefs, thoughts, impulses, and judgments and allows for their reflection by both the participant doing the suspension and all others in the dialogue. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any subject matter and tangential departures from any subject and memorializes the dialogue showing all dimensions of the collective thought of the participants. It is feasible to develop a DBD system utilizing the technology available with WikiWikiWeb. It is feasible to develop a DBD system that is available for use at little or no cost.
Testable Hypothesis 1 (TDPH01) It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any number of participants and minimally of 40 participants. The tested instantiation had 54 participants.
No problems were
associated with this number. The software utilized for the development of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue is capable of supporting the number of participants that would feasibly be included in a dialogue and possibly many more.
111 Testable Hypothesis 2 (TDPH02) It is feasible to design a DBD system that can support the dialogue process for an extended and indeterminate time. The tested instantiation is still available for use (two years after first being made available).
While it is currently not being used, it is still
available and capable of use. Testable Hypothesis 3 (TDPH03) It is feasible to design a DBD system that allows for membership changes. Minor membership changes were made in the period of testing the instantiation. If it were not for the dialogue being used as part of a class, the membership would be open to either self-authorization or no authorization before use. Wikis use both schemes to authenticate their participants (e.g., Wikipedia now requires registration before allowing editing capabilities). Testable Hypothesis 4 (TDPH04) It is feasible to design a DBD system that a participant can utilize at anytime from anywhere with Internet access. Evaluation of the instantiation yields information on both the anytime aspect and anywhere aspect. Anytime
112 As for anytime, an analysis was performed on all of the accesses done for the purpose of updating the wiki pages for the instantiation. The observations were decomposed into twenty-four (24) groups each group representing one hour of the day. The data were decomposed using the hour component of the time of the change (e.g., 13:10 became 13; 22:59 became 22). The results of this evaluation are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 – Percentage of Total Usage by Hour of the Day 10.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21
22
23
Hour of day
All hours of the day have usage, albeit some more than others. However, the use of a wiki is more dependent on the availability of the network and server on which the wiki is hosted. The evidence suggests that given the server and network requirements, the wiki can support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue at all times of the day. Therefore, the anytime aspect of this hypothesis is supported.
113 Anywhere As for anywhere, an analysis was performed on all of the accesses done for the purpose of updating the wiki pages for the instantiation. These observations were decomposed into a distinct set of IP addresses from which the update was initiated.
Updates were initiated from 93
unique IP addresses (see Table 16). Table 16 – Usage by ISP ISP Name Number of Accesses Adelphia 4 America Online 18 Chapman University 173 Comcast Cable 1 Covad Communications 6 Cox Communications 187 DoD Network Information Center 4 Earthlink 26 Hewlett-Packard Company 19 Road Runner 134 SBC Internet Services 58 Sprint PCS 7 University of Redlands 1 UUNET Technologies 10 Verizon Internet Services 9
Access Percentage 0.6% 2.7% 26.3% 0.2% 0.9% 28.5% 0.6% 4.0% 2.9% 20.4% 8.8% 1.1% 0.2% 1.5% 1.4%
Given the data, there is a sufficient variation and range of networks and hosts to support the use of the wiki and therefore the dispersed Bohmian dialogue from any available Internet node. aspect of this hypothesis is supported.
Therefore, the anywhere
114 Testable Hypothesis 5 (TDPH05) It is feasible to design a DBD system that does not require hierarchical arrangement of its participants, which implies no management or control by one or more participants. The instantiation in this dissertation allowed all participants to make any changes that they felt necessary to communicate the truth to the rest of the participants. There is no moderator in the instantiation.
There is,
however, an administrator, who provides technical support for the software and the instantiation. These support functions are such things as backup, network configuration, addition of new users, and database administration functions.
No one, including the administrator, had any
more control over content than any other participant.
However, there
were two departures from this. First, the administrator function was the only user who could perform a rollback to a specific wiki page or delete a wiki page.
This limitation was put into place because of mistakes by
participants who caused irrecoverable changes to wiki pages. Without the delete function, the complete history of a wiki page is kept, even if all of the content is removed. Second, given the use of undergraduate classes as a surrogate, there was an instructor.
This instructor provided
motivation for participation via threats, grades, and general harassment. The motivational components of these acts are not within the scope of this research.
It is necessary to point out that, while there was a
115 controlling presence in the instructor, this influence was directed toward use and not content. The students were encouraged to participate by the instructor, but were free to make the contribution that they wanted, in the form they wanted, and with the ideas and opinions they wanted. They were not directed to accept or move toward a given idea or opinion. As such, this is not equivalent to a moderator or facilitator on the dialogue that directs content. Testable Hypothesis 6 (TDPH06) It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports a participant’s suspension of beliefs, thoughts, impulses, and judgments and allows for their reflection by both the participant doing the suspension and all others in the dialogue. This is a feature that is central to Bohmian dialogues.
However, even
with traditional Bohmian dialogues, suspension is difficult to practice and even more difficult to ascertain from the participants.
Even with
interrogation, the participants, knowing it is a desirable characteristic of participation, might be less than candid in their assessment of their own acts. Additionally, within the instantiation, the evaluation of suspension was made more difficult because of the nature of the scope of their subject matter. Suspension can, and should, happen in any dialogue by the participants. It is most apparent and its absence is most apparent in dialogues in which the subject matter is contentious and or polarizing.
116 The further apart the participants’ opinions the more need for suspension. The way these were handled within the wiki was to bifurcate the wiki page into the two opinions (in some cases, multiple options) with crossreferencing via hyperlinks. In this manner, both sides are presented and the collective knowledge of the subject and its analysis are easily visible to the participants as it would be in a traditional Bohmian dialogue if both parties were given the chance to provide their opinions. While there is evidence that the instantiation supports suspension, this determination cannot be made with any certainty.
However, one
could not make this determination by observation or other method in a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue with any certainty. hypothesis is probably supported.
Therefore, this
It is assumed that the participants
who can effectively suspend their beliefs, thoughts, impulses, and judgments can do so in a dispersed Bohmian dialogue also. Additionally, one benefit of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue is that the absence of the temporal limitation allows the participants additional time for reflection that they would not have had if participating in a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue. There are more data to support this presented in the further analysis described later in this chapter.
117
Testable Hypothesis 7 (TDPH07) It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any subject matter and tangential departures from any subject and memorializes the dialogue showing all dimensions of the collective thought of the participants.
Support of Any Subject Matter A wiki as a dispersed Bohmian dialogue supports the development of wiki pages. It is within these wiki pages that the content is contained. This content is dependent on the participants.
Without a controlling
influence, the wiki will support all content. No subject matter is barred. The wiki is essentially a content management facility.
It has no
functionality for censorship, only content management. See Table 17 for the complete list of page names that were generated within the instantiation. A wide variety of names and associated content is shown. Therefore, this dimension is supported by the design theory and its instantiations. Table 17 – Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue Page Names Page ID A01 A02 A03 A04 B01 B02
Page Name ai another_planet apple attendence biblical_numbers big_brother
118 Page ID B03
Page Name bourne_identity
C01 C02 D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06
Carse communications_matrix david dbd defraud_a_biometrics-only_system demolition_man different_levels_of_intelligence do_i_make_this_outfit_look_bad
D07
does_chapman_university_use_technology_successfully
D08 E01 F01 F02 F03 F04 G01 G02 G03 G04 H01 H02 H03 H04 H05 H06 H07
does_this_outfit_make_me_look_fat enterprise folding_paper fps free_of_charge free_to_change gattica good_luck_on_finals gps group_h hacking halo hans_moravec homelessness horror_story human_evolution humans
I01
i_think_that_if_people_are_already_settled_into_their_ urban_areas_they_will_not_move_out_to_the_rural_areas_ just_because_that_opportunity_is_now_possible
I02 I03 I04 I05 I06 J01 J02 J03 K01
ians_page imb industrial_revolution information_revolution interesting james_h_snider john_r_searle john_s_mayo kidnapped
119 Page ID M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 P01 P02 P03 R01 R02 R03 R04 S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10 T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 W01 W02 W03 W04 W05 W06 W07 W08 W09 W10 W11 W12 W13
Page Name magically manage_our_own_spending microsoft msnbc_article my_page Prior to the Industrial Revolutionprocrastination_is_a_problem_i_have prophecy redlands retarded retarded_user rural sample_page sardine sb1834 scary_side searle security should_i_still_be_living_with_my_parents summer_vacation superstitious sylvester_stallone team_h technological_divide the_great_war the_myspace_controversy topics tracking_devices week_one_topics week_one-topic_one week_one-topic_two week_two_topics week_two-topic_one week_two-topic_two week_three_topics week_three-topic_one week_three-topic_two week_four_topics week_four-topic_five whether_a_computer_will_be_able_to_feel why_are_we_exploring_space
120 Page ID W14
why_people_would_resist_this_technology
W15 W16 W17 W18 Y01 Y02
wiki windows_vista_for_gaming without_their_permission women y2k_vs_666 your_page_name
Page Name
Support of Tangential Departures As described above, no subject matter is excluded. Because of this any departures from the “thread” of the discussion are supported. All of this is subject to the editing of the other participants.
However, the
correction of any departure from a subject will be just a change in the navigation between pages or the creation of a new page to support the alternative idea (i.e., a bifurcation). Because of the content management nature of a wiki, there is no limitation on tangential departures from the subject. Therefore, this dimension is supported by the design theory and its instantiations.
Figure 624 shows the total pages (i.e., internal and
external) that were linked in the instantiation.
Figure 725 shows the
domain map for internal links (i.e., those links to other parts of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue only).
24 25
This figure is also shown in a larger format in Appendix 5. This figure is also shown in a larger format in Appendix 6.
121 Figure 6 – Full Domain Map of Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue Wiki
Figure 7 – Internal Domain Map of Dispersed Bohmian Dialogue Wiki
122 Support of Collective Thought Using a wiki as the content management system to support the collective thought of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue allows evaluation of the efficacy of the collected thoughts. Because of the use of the wiki, it is easy to synthesize many diverse thoughts using the ability to link pages via hyperlinks (Nelson, 1999). This synthesis can be measured, to some extent, by evaluating these links.
The wiki pages by themselves can
store the entire content of a dialogue; however, for effective use of the collective knowledge, some synthesis is required. This synthesis is seen by linking thoughts (i.e., wiki pages). Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the link processes that were developed as part of the test of this instantiation. Testable Hypothesis 8 (TDPH08) It is feasible to develop a DBD system utilizing the technology available with WikiWikiWeb. No programming was required for building any part of any of the instantiation. All of the instantiation was constructed from the technology provided through the Seedwiki software.
This lowers the cost which
contributes to the support of Testable Hypothesis 9. Also, it is possible for the construction of a wiki to support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue by an average computer user. This allows the use of a DBD by those most interested in using Bohmian dialogues to support their work. Largely, the practitioners of Bohmian dialogues are not information technology people.
123 They tend to come from the social science realm. The use of a wiki with its absence of a programming requirement for implementation enables non-technical people to utilize a tool without limitations. As this research and the design theory suggest, this is an enabling technology for possible social change. This hypothesis is supported. Testable Hypothesis 9 (TDPH09) It is feasible to develop a DBD system that is available for use at little or no cost. The instantiation in this dissertation utilized the Seedwiki software. Aside from the computer and the Internet connection, the software is all available at little (if passwords are required) or no cost.
A minimal
computer platform that can utilize this software can be obtained for a reasonable cost, $200 plus the cost of a monitor (Ogg, 2008). Therefore, since this research supports the use of low-cost software (i.e., wiki) to develop a dispersed Bohmian dialogue, this hypothesis is supported. Other Criteria for Success The development of a design theory requires certain defined components including the testable design hypotheses. While the design theory can be supported through these hypotheses, they do not necessarily provide a complete picture of success. It is difficult to achieve success with a non-dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
A dispersed Bohmian
124 dialogue has the same problems. Bohmian dialogues are about process, not outcomes. It is this process that allows the possibility of outcomes. In any endeavor in Bohmian dialogues, there is no guarantee of success. The only thing that we have is the process that allows us to communicate and capture the collective knowledge of the assembled participants. Therefore, we look for evidence that the dialogue can occur and thrive in the chosen environment, whether face-to-face or dispersed.
The
following sections are presented as examples of this evidence. Summary The evaluation of the instantiations through the lens of the testable hypotheses is summarized in Table 18. It shows that one can develop a dispersed Bohmian dialogue from the proffered design theory and the use of a wiki can support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
Therefore, the
developed design theory for the class of information systems known as dispersed Bohmian dialogue is also supported by this research.
125
Hypothesis TDPH01 TDPH02 TDPH03
TDPH04
TDPH05
TDPH06
TDPH07
TDPH08 TDPH09
Table 18 – Evaluation of the Testable Design Hypotheses Hypothesis Description Conclusion It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any Supported number of participants and minimally 40 participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that can support the Supported dialogue process for an extended and indeterminate time. It is feasible to design a DBD system that allows for Supported membership changes. Anytime – It is feasible to design a DBD system that a participant Supported can utilize at anytime from anywhere with Internet Anywhere – access. Supported It is feasible to design a DBD system that does not require hierarchical arrangement of its participants, which implies Supported no management or control by one or more participants. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports a participant’s suspension of beliefs, thoughts, impulses, Probably and judgments and allows for their reflection by both the supported participant doing the suspension and all others in the dialogue. It is feasible to design a DBD system that supports any subject matter and tangential departures from any subject Supported and memorializes the dialogue showing all dimensions of the collective thought of the participants. It is feasible to develop a DBD system utilizing the Supported technology available with WikiWikiWeb. It is feasible to develop a DBD system that is available for Supported use at little or no cost.
Evaluation of the Corpus (Text Analysis) Basic textual analysis was performed on the major components of the instantiation.
The tests were to determine the general make up of
the text, its readability, its complexity, and to identify markers that would support a finding that a Bohmian dialogue did or did not occur (i.e., indications of suspension). The pages of the wiki (i.e., the instantiation) that were chosen for analysis were the pages associated with the weekly seeding questions and the fourth week participant generated questions.
126 The analyses performed using a web-based tool called Textalyser ("Textalyser," 2004) were
general word counts,
readability using the Gunning-Fog Index in which an index (based on the number of years of education required to read the text) of 6 equates to easy and 20 to hard (Gunning, 1969),
a Flesh-Kincaid readability test in which an index of 100 is considered easy, an index of 20 is hard, and optimal is 60-70 (Flesch, 1948), and
a lexical density test which is computed as the percentage of unique words to the total count of words in the sample; dense text has an index of 60-70% and text considered not dense 4050%.
These tests were performed to ensure that the work presented was of sufficient complexity and density to be consistent with the population writing it. While not a test of the instantiation per se, it is an indication that the participants made efforts to communicate at a collegiate level. Table 19 shows the results of the analysis. As a control, a random New York Times news article was obtained and the same analysis was performed.
The article had 791 words, a
Gunning-Fog Index of 8.2, a Flesh-Kincaid readability index of 51.5, and a lexical density of 64.2%. The averages of the planned topics (not fanciful
127 or trite as some of the student ones) show a lower lexical density but more difficult in the readability measurements requiring 1.4 more years of schooling to read than the New York Times article and slightly less readable using the Flesh-Kincaid readability index.
Page Week 1 Topic 1 Week 1 Topic 2 Week 2 Topic 1 Week 2 Topic 2 Week 3 Topic 1 Week 3 Topic 2 Week 4 Topic 1 Week 4 Topic 2 Week 4 Topic 3 Week 4 Topic 4 Week 4 Topic 5 Week 4 Topic 6 Week 4 Topic 7 Week 4 Topic 8 Week 4 Topic 9 Week 4 Topic 10 Week 4 Topic 11 Average of all Average of planned topics
Table 19 – Text Analysis of the Instantiation Gunning-Fog Flesh-Kincaid Index readability lexical density Word Count 3641 10.9 39.8 39.10 3138 9.3 49 36.20 3226 10.2 45 35.40 4188 9.3 52.3 35.70 3726 8.4 55.6 34.80 3256 9.4 51.3 36.30 5078 8.3 55.6 31 1175 8.1 58.1 52.90 300 10.4 45.2 73.70 565 8.4 53.6 64.80 320 6 69.3 65.30 523 10.7 48.1 63.30 344 8.5 69.2 54.10 4 3.6 102.5 100 265 6.4 67.8 67.5 9 8.7 48.2 88.9 33 9.9 43.9 97 1752 8.6 56.14 57.41 3529
9.6
48.83
36.25
An analysis of two and three word phrases was performed and provided some insight into the question of suspension within the Bohmian dialogue. Phrases that indicate that writers are suspending their beliefs and opinions for all to see were sought out.
These phrases include “I
think,” “I feel,” “I agree,” and “I believe.” Using the main body of text (i.e., the weekly topics), the following two (Table 20) and three word (Table 21) phrases were observed and their frequency noted.
128 Table 20 – Two-Word Phrases with Count and Rank of All Phrases Phrase
W1 T1 28 3rd 10 15th 10 15th 6 19th
I think I feel I agree I believe
W1 T2 8 15th
I would
7 16th 7 16th 6 17th
W2 T1 26 5th 3 22nd 4 21st 4 21st 3 22nd
W2 T2 27 4th 3 26th 4 25th 4 25th 3 26th
W3 T1 22 6th 2 25th 4 23rd 3 24th 14 12th
W3 T2 26 1st
2 21st 2 21st 2 21st
W4 T1 30 4th 7 20th 2 25th 6 21st 6 21st
W4 T2 5 6th
W4 T3 4 1st
W4 T4 3 4th
Table 21 – Three-Word Phrases with Count and Rank of All Phrases Phrase I think that I feel that I agree with I do not
W1 T1 10 2nd 9 3rd 9 3rd 4 8th
W1 T2 2 12th
W2 T1 14 2nd
6 8th 3 11th
3 10th 11 3rd
W2 T2 12 3rd 2 10th 3 11th 8 4th
W3 T1 7 5th
W3 T2 15 1st
W4 T1 10 2nd 3 9th
W4 T2 3 4th
4 8th 12 3rd
12 11th
22 1st
2 5th
W4 T3
W4 T4
The prominence of these phrases supports a finding that suspension that is essential to a Bohmian dialogue did occur with some participants. Evaluation of the Post Hoc Survey A survey was administered to all participants post hoc. The survey instrument (see Appendix 4) was slightly modified from the instrument previously used by the author and other researchers (Olfman, Raman, & Stager, 2005). The instrument consists of 20 questions, four additional questions regarding the participants, and an area for comments. The 20 questions require answers on a seven point Likert scale. The scale is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
– – – – – – –
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree.
129 The instrument was designed for on-going research on the use of wikis in an educational environment.
Additional questions were added to
investigate the use of a wiki as a tool for Bohmian dialogues.
The
rationale for each of the questions is presented in the analysis of the results.
The questions used in the evaluation of the instantiation are:
#5 – I learned the most from the wiki #7 – The wiki is a useful tool #8 – I gave my honest opinions on the wiki #15 – The wiki is useful as a dialogue tool for discussing issues #16 – I learned from the wiki entries from the other participants #17 – I understand the range of thoughts on the issues presented in the wiki #18 – I felt that I could not give my true thoughts on the wiki #19 – Other participants in the wiki gave their honest opinions on the wiki #20 – The use of the wiki in this class was a waste of time. Table 22 below shows the pertinent questions and the descriptive statistics on those nine questions. The statistics were generated utilizing SPSS Version 16.0.
130 Table 22 – Descriptive Statistics on DBD Survey Questions #5 #7 #8 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 N Valid 54 54 54 52 N Missing 0 0 0 2 Mean 5.57 6.35 6.81 6.33 Std. Error of Mean 0.171 0.088 0.053 0.109 Median 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 Mode 6 6 7 7 Standard Deviation 1.253 0.649 0.392 0.785 Skewness -0.862 -0.926 -1.668 -1.165 Std. Error of Skewness 0.325 0.325 0.325 0.330 Kurtosis 0.194 1.800 0.809 1.249 Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.639 0.639 0.639 0.650 Range 5 3 1 3 Minimum 2 4 6 4 Maximum 7 7 7 7 25 Percentile 5.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 50 Percentile 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 75 Percentile 6.25 7.00 7.00 7.00 a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
53 1 6.00 0.132 6.00 6a 0.961 -0.811 0.327 0.466 0.644 4 3 7 5.00 6.00 7.00
53 1 6.26 0.094 6.00 6 0.684 -0.390 0.327 -0.794 0.644 2 5 7 6.00 6.00 7.00
54 0 1.63 0.159 1.00 1 1.170 2.975 0.325 10.562 0.639 6 1 7 1.00 1.00 2.00
54 0 5.76 0.137 6.00 6 1.008 -0.523 0.325 -0.728 0.639 3 4 7 5.00 6.00 6.25
#20 54 0 1.57 0.117 1.00 1 0.860 1.517 0.325 1.630 0.639 3 1 4 1.00 1.00 2.00
The analysis of the questions is presented by question. #5 – I learned the most from the wiki
This question was designed to elicit responses on the use of the wiki for the instantiation but in the context of an educational tool and an adjunct to the traditional tools used for the conduct of the class. There was an expectation that this question would yield a response that indicated the participants’ feelings about using a wiki. The results were mixed and fell between “somewhat agree” and “agree” at 5.57 but there was a wide distribution of responses with a S.D. of 1.253 from that mean. However, the concept was generally positive with the 25th percentile at 5 (“somewhat agree”). #7 – The wiki is a useful tool
This question closely resembles Question #5 but removes the educational component and relies on the general feeling about the wiki. The results are more on the positive side with a strong “agree” at 6.35 with a S.D. of
131 0.649.
The range of responses was only 3 with 5 (“somewhat agree”)
being the lowest response. #8 – I gave my honest opinions on the wiki
The Bohmian dialogue concept of suspension requires honesty of the participants.
The suspension is not one of holding back but rather of
suspending ones thoughts, ideas, and point of view for all to see as one would a flag or a sign. Honesty is obviously a major component in this. True dialogue cannot happen if the participants are either telling what they believe the group wants to hear or holding back their true thoughts and feelings. These results are extremely positive with a mean of 6.81 (very high “agree” to “strongly agree”). The S.D. from this mean was a rather low 0.392 because of a 1 value range (6 “agree” to 7 “strongly agree”). #15 – The wiki is useful as a dialogue tool for discussing issues
This question was constructed to elicit the participants’ feelings about the use of a wiki as a tool for a Bohmian dialogue. While not formally asking, the question was phrased in a less technical manner to ensure that understanding of the concept of a Bohmian dialogue or lack thereof was not a barrier to evaluating the tool. The results show a mean of 6.33, well within the “agree” to “strongly agree” range. mean was 0.785.
The S.D. from this
The range of answers was 4 (“neither agree nor
disagree”) to 7 with a mode of 7 (“strongly agree”) and a 25th percentile value of 6 (“agree”). From the participants’ view the tool did support the
132 dialogue concepts that they understood from the antecedent lecture on Bohmian dialogue. #16 – I learned from the wiki entries from the other participants
This question was constructed to determine the learning experienced by the participants in the instantiation. A positive result would support the concept that the participants are learning or at least understanding what is being presented in the Bohmian dialogue.
This indicates the level of
general openness and if the collective thought is being memorialized within the dialogue and the tool that supports it. The mean response was 6 (“agree”) with a S.D. of 0.961.
The mode was also 6 (“agree”)
although 7 (“strongly agree”) also represents the mode. #17 – I understand the range of thoughts on the issues presented in the wiki
This question was constructed to determine the openness experienced by the participants in the instantiation.
One would hope that this result
would be positive to support the notion that the participants understand the ideas and opinions of their fellow participants and the range and breadth of their thoughts. The mean was 6.26 (“agree”) with a S.D. of 0.684. The minimum response was 5 (“somewhat agree”); the mode, the 25th and 50th percentile was 6. #18 – I felt that I could not give my true thoughts on the wiki
This question is the opposite form of Question #8. One would expect that this question would result in low numbered responses on the presented scale.
Additionally, this question was also constructed to test for a
133 response set (the evaluation of this is performed with the correlations presented in the next section). The mean is 1.63 (“strongly disagree” to “disagree”) with a S.D. from that mean of 1.170. #19 – Other participants in the wiki gave their honest opinions on the wiki
This question is an extension to Question #8. It is also a test of the trust of the other participants. While not as positive as the results on Question #8, the result is still positive with a mean of 5.76 (“somewhat agree” to “agree”) and a S.D. of 1.008.
The difference between the honest
responses they felt they gave to the honesty they perceived is slightly over one ordinal point. #20 – The use of the wiki in this class was a waste of time
This is the counter question to Question #7.
The mean of 1.57
represents “strongly disagree” to “disagree” with a S.D. of 0.860.
134 Relationship between questions As mentioned in the analysis of the questions presented above, certain pairs of questions (see Table 21) were analyzed to determine their correlation coefficient (Spearman’s rho [] calculations using SPSS Version 16.0). Q5 Q5 Q7 Q8 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
Table 23 – Correlations (, significance [2-tailed], N) Q7 Q8 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19
1.000 54 .547** .000 54 .092 .506 54 .113 .426 52 .260 .060 53 .269 .051 53 -.185 .181 54 .084 .548 54 -.124 .373 54
.547** .000 54 1.000 54 .257 .060 54 .355** .010 52 .314* .022 53 .316* .021 53 -.441** .001 54 .258 .060 54 -.331* .015 54
.092 .506 54 .257 .060 54 1.000 54 .470** .000 52 .278* .044 53 .400** .003 53 -.442** .001 54 .384** .004 54 -.558** .000 54
.113 .426 52 .355** .010 52 .470** .000 52 1.000 52 .504** .000 52 .605** .000 52 -.341* .013 52 .357** .009 52 -.578** .000 52
.260 .060 53 .314* .022 53 .278* .044 53 .504** .000 52 1.000 53 .684** .000 53 -.377** .005 53 .369** .007 53 -.375** .006 53
.269 .051 53 .316* .021 53 .400** .003 53 .605** .000 52 .684** .000 53 1.000 53 -.460** .001 53 .298* .030 53 -.454** .001 53
-.185 .181 54 -.441** .001 54 -.442** .001 54 -.341* .013 52 -.377** .005 53 -.460** .001 53 1.000 54 -.320* .018 54 .644** .000 54
.084 .548 54 .258 .060 54 .384** .004 54 .357** .009 52 .369** .007 53 .298* .030 53 -.320* .018 54 1.000 54 -.495** .000 54
Q20 -.124 .373 54 -.331* .015 54 -.558** .000 54 -.578** .000 52 -.375** .006 53 -.454** .001 53 .644** .000 54 -.495** .000 54 1.000 54
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
A determination was made to see if the survey resulted in a response set.
Two sets of questions were designed to reflect opposite
feelings and would therefore be expected to show a negative correlation if a response set resulted from the survey.
The first of the sets was
Question #7 (“A wiki is a useful tool.”) and Question #20 (“The use of the
135 wiki in this class was a waste of my time.”). 54 responses were used in the correlation which resulted in a correlation coefficient of -0.331 (sig. 0.015) significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The second set was
Question #8 (“I gave my honest opinion on the wiki.”) and Question #18 (“I felt like I could not give my true thoughts on the wiki.”). This resulted in a correlation coefficient of -0.442 (sig. 0.001) significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). As a test of general feelings of honesty and openness which would indicate the suspension required in a Bohmian dialogue, two questions were posed. Question # 8 (“I gave my honest opinion on the wiki.”) and Question #19 (“Other participants in the wiki gave their honest opinions on the wiki.”) both showed positive responses (see above).
The
correlation coefficient for these two questions was calculated as 0.384 (sig. 0.004) which is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This positive correlation supports a finding of general feelings of openness on the part of both the outbound and inbound communications. As a final test of the efficacy of the wiki as a tool to support a Bohmian dialogue three additional questions were posed: Question #15 (“The wiki is useful as a dialogue tool for discussing issues.”), Question #16 (“I learned from the wiki entries of the other participants.”), and Question #17 (“I understand the range of thoughts on the issues presented in the wiki.”).
These questions served as tests of the
136 usefulness of the tool in the context of a Bohmian dialogue; that the participants gained knowledge for the other participants and therefore were open to learning, and understanding of the others’ opinions and the range of the thought on the particular subject. All three of these showed positive results on an individual question basis in the survey results. As a test of the instantiation, three correlation coefficients were obtained. Question #15 and Question #16 (N=52) showed a correlation coefficient of 0.504 (sig. 0.000) significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Question #15 and Question #17 (N=52) showed a correlation coefficient of 0.605 (sig. 0.000) significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Question
#16 and Question #17 (N=53) showed a correlation coefficient of 0.684 (sig. 0.000) significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
All the above are
positive correlations supporting the efficacy of using a wiki to support a Bohmian dialogue; therefore, there is evidence to strongly suggest a Bohmian dialogue took place on this instantiation. Other Evaluations The corpus contains exemplars of dialogue. The text presented in the instantiation ranged from the sacred to the profane; from the inspired to the comical. The researcher has chosen the one on the discussion of Second Life26. This question generated some of the most interesting and
26
“Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents.” http://secondlife.com/ [CORPUS: W08/2:5]
137 thoughtful comments in the instantiation.
However, this section is not
unusual. The corpus reflects a desire to communicate and to understand the other participants. One of the first observations was the linkages that were made to other known things in order to relate the unknown to the known.
This
helps understand the unknown object being discussed. For example, in this discussion of Second Life, linkages were made to a book called Snow Crash27 [CORPUS: W08/25:29], the computer game the SIMS [CORPUS: W08/51:58, 72:81, 88:98, 158:162, 438:447], the movie, The Matrix [CORPUS: W08/397:436], and the online game World of Warcraft [CORPUS: W08/341:365, 518:526]. The idea of a virtual world separate from the real world resulted in some interesting observations by the participants in the dialogue. First, on a more positive side, “I think this is like the real world where you can have a melting pot of different people” [CORPUS: W08/39:40] and I think this game is really interesting and have [sic] lot of benefit for real world. In fact, the world is just only “virtual”. The users have to remain that [sic]. But, the game has potentials that help to recognize economic and social develop [sic] as simulation. In the game, there is no specific goal like defeat [sic] enemy or get high scores by some action. That makes this game as special [sic]. The players can make highly independent decision [sic] in the game and make prefer [sic] rules by them self [sic]. It is showed [sic] more flexible communication with the others and improves and stimulates more [sic] free way of thinking and new discovery than [sic] real world. [CORPUS: W08/231:239]. 27
Stephenson, Neal. (1992) Snow Crash. New York: Bantam Books.
138
One person thought of it as a training opportunity for the real world, “I don’t know if this game has an age limit but if it doesn’t then it is a great opportunity for teens to get a head start and be introduced to real life transactions” [CORPUS:W08/294:296]. There were participants that understood the business aspects of Second Life [CORPUS: W08/101:146, 148:156, 243:261, 491:499, 507:516]. There were others that thought it was just a waste of time. “I think this is retarded! This is just another way for people to waist [sic] their time and money. People should be reading the newspaper and reading other pertinent information about stuff that actually matters in today’s world instead of drowning their sorrows in some stupid fake world where they can recreate their pathetic lives and probably fail in the virtual world too” [CORPUS: W09/45:48]. “I think that Second Life is pretty stupid” [CORPUS: W08/59]. Social aspects of Second Life were also discussed. Some thought Second Life would “lead to an anti-social life style” [CORPUS: W08/77] and that “we have lost the grasp over what is real and how to enjoy the people and things around us that are real” [CORPUS: W08/84:85]. Some even took a more apocalyptic view: In terms of social implications, very scary. Suppose it catches on to the point where a majority of the world makes a
139 living in the second life world. No one would go to work or even go out because they're living through their fake realities. The only people in real business would be computer manufacturers and supermarket owners. We would lose a lot of qualities that use human interaction. In an extreme case, it might be the end of verbal communication. [CORPUS: W08/173:178] Some dialogue participants alluded to the addictive possibilities. If a participant becomes so comfortable with the technology that he/she chooses not to leave the Second life world and come back to the real world, I could see a break down in interpersonal communication and the loss of real relationships. Like drugs, this might become an addiction that destroys a person’s outlook on reality, and leaves them disillusioned [CORPUS: W08/194:198]. Some made a personal connection to this addiction: I've watched my brothers [sic] life decline from his addiction to World of Warcraft. That’s only a nominal mothly [sic] subscription game. I can just imagine him goin [sic] crazy and buying lots in Second Life. Some people get so caught up in these games that they lose touch with reality. By playing with essentially "real" dollars, Second Life may be able to provide reminders of the real world. From watching my brother play this genre constantly, I can say that these games probably do create a social hazard. He would rather be in his virtual world. Its [sic] a true addiction. [CORPUS: W08:519:525] One final comment from one of the dialogue participants was on a more positive note: Second life is pretty much just that. A second chance for people to experience life without the limitations they face in the everyday world. Since the game is fairly new there is not as much competition for property and business. The virtual world offers opportunities that are not as attainable in reality either because of cost, logistics or other barriers. It is an interesting look at what would happen if people were allowed to disguise themselves and create their ideal world without
140 being held accountable and without having to deal with present day social pressures, being judged and being scrutinized. The anonymity provided by second life creates an outlet for people’s creative abilities. [CORPUS: W08/298:305] The comments described above were from only one piece of the dialogue. It does represent the depth and breadth of material presented. There are exceptions, some fanciful and some self-aggrandizing.
The
majority of the corpus represents 54 people communicating about an issue or question and placing themselves and their opinions out for scrutiny (Bohm’s idea of suspension).
To that end, this supports the
claim that a Bohmian dialogue did take place. The researcher had one regret in analyzing the corpus of this dialogue (instantiation) which was that more synthesis did not take place (i.e., more editing and reediting of the pages). The researcher mentioned this concern to Ken Tyler (the developer of Seedwiki).
He related a
conflict where this identical situation developed between two authors (i.e., Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze) (Guattari & Nadaud, 2006, pp. 1119).
The text (i.e., Anti-Oedipus) was written as are the pages in this
dialogue; a collaborative effort on a topic which all of the voices are unique but the thought collective. Summary March and Smith (1995, p. 254) state that design science consists of two basic activities, build and evaluate.
This chapter discussed the
141 latter. It is within this chapter that the evidence of the evaluation of the instantiation that was constructed from the previously proffered design theory is presented. This evidence was presented in four parts. 1. Evaluation of the testable hypotheses 2. Textual evaluation of the corpus 3. A post hoc survey of the participants of the dialogue 4. A close reading review of the corpus of the dialogue. First,
the
evaluation
of
the
nine
testable
hypotheses
that
were
constructed at the same time as the design theory supported the design theory. Second, even though the notion that the instantiation could support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue is supported, did it?
The analysis of the
corpus of the dialogue that was undertaken as part of this evaluation supported the claim that a dispersed Bohmian dialogue occurred.
This
evaluation occurred using text analysis tools and a close reading of the corpus (one part of this is incorporated in the chapter above).
Both
support the notion that a dispersed Bohmian dialogue not only could occur but did. Finally, the post hoc survey of the dialogue participants supported the design theory and the claim that a dispersed Bohmian dialogue took place.
142 The results of the evaluation of the design theory are patently clear. The instantiation from the design theory can and did support a dispersed Bohmian dialogue.
Chapter 8 – Conclusion Introduction Peter Senge, in his preface to David Bohm’s On Dialogue states, It is easy to dismiss Bohm as a romantic idealist . . . But my experiences over the past fifteen years with both the possibility and challenge of dialogue leads me to see him quite differently. I would call David Bohm an extreme realist. He knew that no society has ever faced the sort of global predicament we face, and that we are not likely to muddle through without radical changes in our way of being – together. (Bohm, 1996b, xiv) Bohm’s dialogue is important; it is needed. It has been shown to be a useful tool for understanding each other and specific problems.
The
limitations of dialogue are such that it does not provide the support for global problems that it could. It is therefore seen that dialogue needs to evolve.
Dialogue needs to move into the virtual realm.
It is through
work such as this dissertation that we as a society can develop and use tools to understand each other; to understand the problems we face; and to attempt, empowered with this understanding, to make a difference; to resolve conflicts and to solve these problems. This
dissertation
presented
a
design
theory
for
information system known as dispersed Bohmian dialogues.
a
class
of
No design
theory existed for this class of information systems. If one wished to provide such a system, it was unclear how to proceed. This dissertation provides a design theory that stays true to the ideal that Bohm proffered 143
144 whilst removing the constraints inherent in the face-to-face Bohmian dialogue. The design theory was utilized to build an artifact for evaluation. An instantiation of the design theory was built and evaluated through the lens of the design theory. The results of this analysis supported eight of the nine testable hypotheses and marginally supported the one remaining testable hypothesis. The testable hypotheses presented with the design theory provide a set of criteria for evaluation of the design theory and the resultant instantiations.
These testable hypotheses should be used in
future research that is based on the design theory presented herein. The testable hypotheses are an important part of design research. Hevner, et al. (2004, p. 84) state, “The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well executed evaluation methods. Evaluation is a crucial component of the research process.” It is with these testable hypotheses that the design theory is tested using the artifact as the surrogate for the design theory.
March
and Smith (1995, p. 258) describe this process. We build an artifact to perform a specific task. The basic question is, does it work? Building an artifact demonstrates feasibility. These artifacts then become the object of study. We build constructs, models, methods, and instantiations. Each is a technology that, once built, must be evaluated scientifically. We evaluate artifacts to determine if we have made any progress. The basic question is, how well does it work? Recall that progress is achieved when a technology is replaced by a more effective one. Evaluation requires the development of metrics and the measurement of artifacts
145 according to those metrics. Metrics define what we are trying to accomplish. They are used to assess the performance of an artifact. Lack of metrics and failure to measure artifact performance according to established criteria result in an inability to effectively judge research. The instantiation was also evaluated by using techniques of textual analysis. A survey of the participants of the dispersed Bohmian dialogue was performed.
Both of these support the design theory and indicate
that a dispersed Bohmian dialogue can and did occur using the instantiation. Presented in this conclusion are the identified limitations of the research, the contribution of this work to the discipline, and areas and plans for future research. Limitations of the Research Delimitations While it possible to generalize to the population of people who engage in dialogical collaboration in a virtual environment, the purpose of this study is the evaluation of the proposed design theory. This design theory is limited in scope to the development of an information system that can be used by the general population. Anecdotal evidence suggests that once possessing the appropriate technology, many, if not all of the population can contribute to a dispersed Bohmian dialogue since many cultures value this type of activity and its use in developing and sharing
146 collective thought. The use of dispersed Bohmian dialogue is limited only by technological availability. It remains a problem of distribution. Limitations The nature of virtual communities, virtual communication, and virtual collaboration requires only access to a computer connected to the Internet and sufficient knowledge to participate in the dispersed dialogue (i.e., the wiki implementation of this research, or another instantiation). The participants in this research were all undergraduate students. These students
were
all
business
students
but
none
were
students
of
information technology, management information systems, or computer science. They all did possess basic computer knowledge (e.g., capability of utilizing a word processor and accessing the Internet).
This work is
generalizable to the general population that are capable of surviving in this world based on the assumption that this survival requires certain innate abilities (e.g., communication, cognition, and the ability to sense and feel). Aside from the computer requirement, this research is limited only by the willingness of participants.
Therefore, the participant
population may be limited to the people who are inclined to engage in a dialogue type of discourse and who find the subject interesting or attractive for some reason. There is a probability that people who are not interested in the subject of the dialogue or the dialogue method of discourse will be under
147 represented or unrepresented.
This problem is seen with knowledge
management systems (KMS).
It may be a problem of motivation in
addition to or instead of the lack of interest. Motivating participants to place knowledge in a KMS is a widely known problem. Lack of motivation stems from lack of incentive to do extra work, a reluctance to share hard won knowledge, and many other reasons.
This problem has been
exhibited at corporations and institutions that have implemented KMSs such as DaimlerChrysler, The World Bank, Buckman Laboratories, and Siemens (Fulmer, 2001, 2003; MacCormack, 2002; Rukstad & Coughlan, 2001).
However, just as the use of incentives worked in the examples
provided above, incentives also worked in this instantiation (i.e., grades). The use of academic classes as a surrogate for a dialogue group is made for convenience but also because there is not a specific population that is required for the testing of a traditional Bohmian dialogue or a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. Bohmian dialogue is about process and not outcomes. Even though a dialogue was demonstrated, it may not adequately represent the process.
The process is what is specified within the design theory; the
process is what was tested.
The process is what was supported.
The
quality of the dialogue is important but not as an evaluation of the design theory.
This represents the first step in a stream of research on
148 dispersed Bohmian dialogues. The subsequent steps are discussed in the following future research section. Contribution The design theory presented in this dissertation is an important theoretical contribution because it identifies a new class of information system. This new class of information system has been successful in a non-dispersed environment without the incorporation of information technology.
With the use of information technology, limitations to the
traditional Bohmian dialogues have been removed.
The success of
Bohmian dialogues can be realized on a larger and possibly more dramatic and needed scale. The design theory presented in this dissertation also is an important theoretical contribution because the class of information system that are produced from it are of use in more than a communication realm. These systems can be easily adapted for goal-oriented activity, group decision making,
and
as
knowledge
and
content
management
systems.
Communication and the establishment of a repository of collective thought are central to collaborative systems.
This design theory
presented these two processes in an extensible platform that allows their use in related classes of information systems. This design theory for dispersed Bohmian dialogues is an important theoretical contribution because it provides guidance to anyone wishing to
149 create such a system, and it provides guidance and frameworks to those wishing to study or evaluate like systems or process methods. Future Research There are unanswered questions from this research and new questions have been generated from this research. One possible area is the comparison of a traditional Bohmian dialogue to a dispersed Bohmian dialogue. This research lends itself to an experimental format. However, there is an inherent problem with such research. It is akin to the Zen saying that one cannot step in the same river twice; there is no significance if one dialogue worked and the other did not. The makeup of the group, the timing, the subject, the time of day, and all externalities would have unplanned and unseen influences on the experiment. Another question to be answered is whether this design theory supports a more contentious or polarizing dialogue? Can this type of dialogue be effectively used by participants who are well-known to each other and also with participants that are strangers to each other? Does one need to have technical skills to participate in a dispersed Bohmian dialogue? This dissertation is the first step to answer these questions. Without the development of this design theory, the subsequent steps are moot. The design theory presented herein serves as the foundation for
150 that research and for the development of the supporting information system. The next step is to construct a model with the variables listed above.
Some time would be required to identify the independent and
dependent variables. variables.
Also, it may be necessary to identify moderating
This research is complex.
Therefore, any further research
needs to be framed to allow for a reasonable and controllable experiment. Along with that, it is essential that the researcher develop the critical success factors (CSFs) for the dialogue. The identification of a successful dialogue needs to be defined loosely enough remembering Bohm’s ideal that “everybody wins if anybody wins” (Bohm, 1996, p. 7). It is important that this research continues. As long as there are problems, we need a way to understand the problems and each other. As long as a subset of these problems is global, we require a way to effectively create a universal repository of collective thought so that we can move forward with that understanding toward a solution.
Bibliography Abeygunawardena, H. D. (2002). A Substantive Theory of Effective Collaboration Within Asynchronous Computer Mediated Groups. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Adler, N., Shani, A. B., & Styhre, A. (Eds.). (2004). Collaborative Research in Organizations: Foundations for Learning, Change, and Theoretical Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ahn, H. J., Lee, H. J., Cho, K., & Park, S. J. (2004). Utilizing Knowledge Context in Virtual Collaborative Work. Decision Support Systems, In press. Akin, O. (1984). An Exploration of the Design Process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 189-207). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. Alexander, C. (1963). The Determination of Components for an Indian Village. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on Design Methods: Papers Presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, London, September 1962 (pp. 83-114). New York: Pergamon Press. Alter, S. (1999). A General, Yet Useful Theory of Information Systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(13), 1-70. Amit, V. (Ed.). (2000). Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World. London: Routledge. Anderson, R., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (Eds.). (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 151
152
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2003). e-Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2002). Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 1-25). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier. (2002). Argumentation as Negotiation in Electronic Collaborative Writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with Groupware: Understanding and Evaluating Collaboration Technology. New York: Springer. Andriessen, J. H. E., & Roe, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). Telematics and Work. East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Argyris, C. (1965). Organization and Innovation. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. and The Dorsey Press. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to Organizational Knowledge. Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
153 Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. New York: Addison Wesley. Arnett, R. C. (1986). Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber's Dialogue. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Arnett, R. C. (1992). Dialogic Education: Conversation about Ideas and Between Persons. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (1999). The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Asher, H. B., Weisberg, H. F., Kessel, J. H., & Shively, W. P. (1984). Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Association for Information Systems, Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, B. (2004). Design Research in Information Systems. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://www.isworld.org/Researchdesign/drisISworld.htm. Au, Y. A. (2001). Design Science I: The Role of Design Science in Electronic Commerce Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7(1), 1-18. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. 1984: Basic Books. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baker, M. (2002). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interactions for the Co-Elaboration of Scientific Notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
154 Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (20th Anniversary ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information Systems as a Reference Discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14. Bausch, K. (2004). Introduction: Using Systems Thinking to Construct Agoras of the Global Village. World Futures, 60, 1-13. Beale, R. L., & Schoem, D. (2001). The Content/Process Balance in Intergroup Dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 266-279). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bergman, S. H. (1991). Dialogical Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Buber. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller. Bidgoli, H. (1999). Handbook of Management Information Systems: A Managerial Perspective. New York: Academic Press. Bier, E. A., & Pier, K. (2003). Sparrow Web: Group-Writable Information on Structured Web Pages. Paper presented at the CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1969). Theory Construction: From Verbal to Mathematical Formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
155 Blanchard, A. L. (2000). Virtual Behavior Settings: A Framework for Understanding Virtual Communities. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California. Blanchard, A. L., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The Experienced "Sense" of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 65-79. Blascovich, J. (2002). Social Influence within Immersive Virtual Environments. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London: Springer-Verlag. Blau, P. (1970). A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations. American Sociological Review, 35, 201-218. Boehlefeld, S. P. (1996). Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Cyberspace Research. The Information Society, 12, 141-152. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1987). Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend of Dialogue. London: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a System. London: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. London: Routledge. Bohm, D., & Biederman, C. (1999). Bohm-Biederman Correspondence: Volume One: Creativity and Science. London: Routledge. Bohm, D., & Edwards, M. (1991). Changing Consciousness: Exploring the Hidden Source of the Social, Political and Environmental Crises Facing Our World: A Dialogue of Words and Images. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Bohm, D., Factor, D., & Garrett, P. (1991). Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved 3/11/2004, 2004, from http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html. Bohm, D., & Peat, F. D. (2000). Science, Order, and Creativity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
156
Bohm_Dialogue. (2007, April 19). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohm_Dialogue&oldis -124032660. Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Bonczek, R. H., Holsapple, C. W., & Whinston, A. B. (1981). Foundations of Decision Support Systems. New York: Academic Press, Inc. Boogaard, D. J. (2000). Leading Dialogically: Being Authentic, Aware and Compassionate in a Corporate World. Unpublished Dissertation, The Fielding Institute. Bostrom, R. P., Watson, R. T., & Kinney, S. T. (Eds.). (1992). Computer Augmented Teamwork: A Guided Tour. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Bowers, J. (1992). The Politics of Formalism. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 232-261). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Bowman, C. J. (1997). An Exploration of Group Dialogue in an Organizational Change Environment. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New Mexico. Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (1998). Babble: Supporting Conversation in the Workplace. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 19(3), 8-10. Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1987). No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer, 20(4), 10-19. Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1996). The Computer Scientist as Toolsmith II. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), 61-68. Brown, E., & Forbes.com. (2004, June 21). Veni, Vidi ... Wiki? Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://press.jot.com/archives/2004/06/21/veni-vidi-wiki/.
157 Brown, J. (2001). The World Cafe': Living Knowledge Through Conversations That Matter. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute. Brown, J. S. (2002). The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). Local Knowledge: Innovation in the Networked Age. Management Learning, 33(4), 427-437. Browning, G. (2002). Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Transform American Politics. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc. Bruckman, A., & Jensen, C. (2002). The Mystery and Death of MediaMOO: Seven Years of Evolution of an Online Community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Burstein, F., & Gregor, S. (1999). The Systems Development or Engineering Approach to Research in Information Systems: An Action Research Perspective. Paper presented at the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 1999. Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455. Caws, P. (1969). The Structure of Discovery. Science, 166(3911), 1375-1380.
158
Cayer, M. (1996). An Inquiry into the Experience of Bohm's Dialogue. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Saybrook Institute (Canada). Cayer, M. (1997). Bohm's Dialogue and Action Science: Two Different Approaches. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(2), 41-66. Chawla, S., & Renesch (Eds.). (1995). Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Cherns, A. (1976). The Principles of Sociotechnical Design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783-792. Chesler, M. (2001). Exending Intergroup Dialogue: From Talk to Action. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 294-305). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149-168. Churchill, E. F., Snowdon, D. N., & Munro, A. J. (Eds.). (2001). Collaborative Virtual Environments: Digital Places and Spaces for Interaction. London: Springer. Churchman, C. W., & Mason, R. O. (Eds.). (1976). World Modeling: A Dialogue. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company. Ciffolilli, A. (2003). Phantom Authority, Self-Selective Recruitment and Retention of Members in Virtual Communities: The Case of Wikipedia. First Monday, 8(12). Clarke, A. A., Connolly, J. H., Garner, S. W., & Palmen, H. K. (1996). A Language of Cooperation? In J. H. Connolly & L. Pemberton (Eds.), Linguistic Concepts and Methods in CSCW (pp. 61-77). London: Springer-Verlag.
159 Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. (1996). Remarks by the President and the Vice President to the People of Knoxville. Retrieved October 10, 2007. from http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/legacy/101096remarks-by-president-and-vp-in-knoxville-tn.htm. Coakes, E., Willis, D., & Clarke, S. (Eds.). (2002). Knowledge Management in the SocioTechnical World: The Graffiti Continues. London: Springer. Codd, E. F. (1970). A Relational Model for Data for Large Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377-387. Comparison_of_wiki_farms. (2007, October 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_f arms&oldid=163915709. Comparison_of_wiki_software. (2007, October 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_s oftware&oldid=164616516. . Consoletti, N. (1998). A Reflection on Participation in a Dialogue Group in Eugene, Oregon: Based on "A Proposal by David Bohm and Colleagues". Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Union Institute. Cronin, B. (Ed.). (2004). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 38 - 2004). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The People Who Make Organizations Go-or Stop. Harvard Business Review, 105-112. Crossley, N., & Roberts, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
160 Dallmayr, F. R. (1982). The Theory of Structuration: A Critique. In A. Giddens (Ed.), Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory (pp. 1827). Berkeley: University of California Press. Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, Winter 1998, 43-57. Davenport, T. H., & Probst, G. J. B. (Eds.). (2002). Knowledge Management Case Book: Siemens Best Practices (Second ed.). Berlin: John Wiley & Sons. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. David, P. A. (1990). The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox. The American Economic Review, 80(2), 355-361. Davis, S. B. (1996). The Design of Virtual Environments with Particular Reference to VRML. Middlesex, UK: Centre for Electronic Arts Middlesex University. Denning, P. J. (1997). A New Social Contract for Research. Communications of the ACM, 40(2), 132-134. Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F., & Vogel, D. R. (1988). Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591-624. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking Media Richness: Towards a Theory of Media Synchronicity. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) - 1999. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Speier, C., & Morris, M. (1998). Beyond Media Richness: An Empirical Test of Media Synchronicity Theory. Paper presented at the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 1998. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609.
161
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147. Dibbell, J. (1993). A Rape in Cyberspace or How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society. The Village Voice [December 21, 1993], pp. 36-42, Dieberger, A. (2003). Social Connotations of Space in the Design for Virtual Communities and Social Navigation. In K. Hook, D. Benyon & A. J. Munro (Eds.), Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach (pp. 293-313). London: SpringerVerlag. Dieberger, A., & Guzdial, M. (2003). CoWeb - Experiences with Collaborative Web Spaces. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 155-166). London: Springer-Verlag. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on "What Theory is Not". Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391-397. Ding, C., He, X., Husbands, P., Zha, H., & Simon, H. (2002). PageRank, HITS and a Unified Framework for Link Analysis (No. 49372). Berkeley, California: NERSC Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California. Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Educause Review, 39(5), 14-26. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dubin, R. (1969). Theory Building. New York: The Free Press. Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, M. (2003). Relating Collaborative Technology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-268.
162
Easterbrook, S. (Ed.). (1993). CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict? London: Springer-Verlag. Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Egger, M. (1999). EPSInternal Wiki Case Study. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~EPSInternalWikiCaseStudy. Ehrlich, K. (1999). Designing Groupware Applications: A WorkCentered Design Approach. In M. Beaudouin-Lafon (Ed.), Computer Supported Co-operative Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Eklundh, K. S., Groth, K., Hedman, A., Rodriguez, H., & Sallnas, E.-L. (2003). The World Wide Web as a Social Infrastructure for Knowledge-Oriented Work. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 97-126). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Elgin, D. (1989). Sustainable Television: Mass Communication Via Television is Crucial to Our Survival. In Context, 23, 26-27. Ellen, R. F. (1984). Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. London: Academic Press. Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscovering the Transforming Power of Conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. English-Lueck, J. A. (2002). Cultures@SiliconValley. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
163 Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. A. (2000). Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems that Support Social Processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59-83. Eriksen, E. O., & Weigard, J. (2003). Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. New York: Continuum. Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., & Peters, N. (2003). Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Tasks. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 225251). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Esherick, J. (1963). Problems of the Design of a Design System. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on Design Methods: Papers Presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, London, September 1962 (pp. 75-81). New York: Pergamon Press. Farr, J. N., Jenkins, J. J., & Paterson, D. G. (1951). Simplification of the Flesch Reading Ease Formula. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 333-337. Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R. M. (Eds.). (1991). Using Computers in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Finch, I., Coenen, F., Bench-Capon, T., & Shave, M. (1996). Coordinating Human and Software Agents through Electronic Mail. In S. Kirn & G. O'Hare (Eds.), Cooperative Knowledge Processing: The Key Technology for Intelligent Organizations (pp. 64-78). London: Springer-Verlag. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2003). Being There or Being Where? Videoconferencing and Cooperative Learning. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 205-223). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Fisher, D. (2003). Studying Social Information Spaces. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 3-19). London: Springer-Verlag.
164 Fisher, D., & Lueg, C. (2003). Studying Online Newsgroups. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 253-260). London: SpringerVerlag. Flesch, R. (1948). A New Readability Yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-235. Fornas, J., Klein, K., Ladendorf, M., Sunden, J., & Sveningsson, M. (2002). Digital Borderlands: Cultural Studies of Identity and Interactivity on the Internet. New York: Peter Lang. Freeman, P., & Hart, D. (2004). A Science of Design for SoftwareIntensive Systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(8), 19-21. Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum. Friedman, M. (1992). Dialogue and the Human Image. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. A., & Schwarz, D. (1992). The Dynamics of Context-Behaviour Interactions in Computer-Mediated Communication. In M. Lee (Ed.), Context of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 7-29). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Fuller, B. (1992). Design Science. Retrieved November 22, 2005, from http://bfi.org/taxonomy/term/26. Gackenbach, J. (Ed.). (1998). Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications. San Diego: Academic Press. Gaffin, A. (2005). Why the Los Angeles Times Wiki Failed So Quickly. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/2200. George, J. F., Easton, G. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Northcraft, G. B. (1990). A Study of Collaborative Group Work with and without Computer-Based Support. Information Systems Research, 1(4), 394-415.
165 Gibbs, G. R. (1998). Modifying Multi-user Discussion Systems to Support Text-based Learning Environments on the Web-the coMentor Experience. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes & S. Wilbur (Eds.), The Digital University: Reinventing the Academy. London: Springer-Verlag. Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Learning Gains in a Multi-User Discussion System Used with Social Science Students - The coMentor Experience. In R. Hazemi & S. Hailes (Eds.), The Digital University - Building a Learning Community (pp. 95-111). London: Springer-Verlag. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giddens, A., & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Godar, S. H., & Ferris, P. (2004). Virtual and Collaborative Teams: Process,Technologies, and Practice. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design Theories in Information Systems-A Need for Multi-Grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 59-72. Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S. M., & Tzou, C. (2003). Science Inquiry in a Digital World: Possibilities for Making Thinking Visible. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 253-283). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Gopal, A., & Prasad, P. (2000). Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from Technology to Interaction. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 509-546. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Gregg, D. G., Kulkarni, U. R., & Vinze, A. S. (2001). Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(2), 169183.
166 Gregor, S. (2002). Design Theory in Information Systems. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 9(Special Edition), 14-22. Gregor, S. (2002). A Theory of Theories in Information Systems. In S. Gregor & D. Hart (Eds.), Information Systems Foundations: Building the Theoretical Base (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Australian National University. Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2003). The Formulation of Design Theories for Information Systems. Working Paper. Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265-287. Grills, S. (Ed.). (1998). Doing Ethnographic Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Grudin, J. (1999). CSCW and Groupware: Their History and Trajectory. In Y. Matsushita (Ed.), Designing Communication and Collaborative Support Systems. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Grudin, R. (1996). On Dialogue: An Essay in Free Thought. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Guattari, F., & Nadaud, S. (2006). The anti-Oedipus papers. New York; Cambridge, Mass.: Semiotext(e) ; Distributed by MIT Press. Gunning, R. (1969). The Fog Index After Twenty Years. Journal of Business Communication, 6, 3-13. Gupta, R. (2005, July 22). The Avatar Versus the Journalist: Making Meaning, Finding Truth. Online Journalism Review Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050721gupta. Gurstein, M. (Ed.). (2000). Community Infomatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communications Technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
167 Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and Development: Theory of Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kerimbaev, B. (2000). Recognizing and Supporting Roles in CSCW. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2000, Philadelphia, PA. Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation Crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hafner, K. (2001). The Well: A Story of Love, Death & Real Life in the Seminal Online Community. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc. Hage, J. (1965). An Axiomatic Theory or Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 289-320. Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (2000). A Framework of Knowledge Management Systems: Issues and Challenges for Theory and Practice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Brisbane. Hale, J. P. (1995). The Theory and Practice of Dialogue in Organizational Settings. Retrieved November 23, 2004, from http://www.workteams.unt.edu/reports/jphale.htm. Hamilton, D. (2004). The Social and Academic Standing of the Information Systems Discipline: General Theory Considered as Cultural Capital. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 1-12. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
168
Hanley, J. M. (2003). A Conceptual Framework Linking Bohmian Dialogue with Individual Consciousness and Shared Consciousness. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Spalding University. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 12431248. Hargrove, R. (1995). Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and the Way They Think and Work Together. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hargrove, R. (1998). Mastering the Art of Creative Collaboration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harris, E. (1999, August 3). A Technology of Citizenship: Learning Democracy. Retrieved April 3, 2004, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/CASAE/cnf99/eharris.htm. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper Colophon Books. Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations (A. J. Pomerans, Trans. Vol. 42). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Herring, S. (1996). Linguistic and Critical Analysis of ComputerMediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations. The Information Society, 12, 153-168. Herrmann, T. (1997). Communicable Models for Cooperative Processes. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, San Francisco. Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Jahnke, I., Kienle, A., Kunau, G., Loser, K.-U., et al. (2003, November 9-12). Concepts for Usable Patterns of Groupware Applications. Paper presented at the GROUP '03, Sanibel Island, Florida. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
169 Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hoadley, C., & Pea, R. D. (2002). Finding the Ties That Bind: Tools in Support of a Knowledge-Building Community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Holeton, R. (1998). Composing Cyberspace: Identity, Community, and Knowledge in the Electronic Age. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hook, K., Benyon, D., & Munro, A. J. (Eds.). (2003). Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach. London: Springer. Hook, K., Benyon, D., & Munro, A. J. (2003). Footprints in the Snow. In K. Hook, D. Benyon & A. J. Munro (Eds.), Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach (pp. 1-13). London: Springer-Verlag. Hook, K., & Svensson, M. (1999). Evaluating Adaptive Navigation Support. In A. J. Munro, K. Hook & D. Benyon (Eds.), Social Navigation of Information Space (pp. 237-249). London: Springer-Verlag. Hosein, I. (2003). A Research Note on Capturing Technology: Toward Moments of Interest. In Wynn, Whitley, Myers & DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology: IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference On Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 133-153). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Howe, D. (2005, November 30, 2005). Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing. Retrieved December 7, 2005, from http://foldoc.org/. Huber, G. P. (1984). Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems. MIS Quarterly, 8(3), 195-204.
170 Huber, G. P. (1990). A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies or Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 47-71. Hurtado, S. (2001). Research and Evaluation on Intergroup Dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 22-36). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Hutson, J. J. (2001). A Directory of Intergroup Dialogue Programs and Organizations. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 345-252). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Igbaria, M., & Tan, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Virtual Workplace. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Intergroup Dialogue Project. (2002). Intergroup Dialogue Project. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/reslife/intergroup.shtml. Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39. Isaacs, W. N. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency Doubleday. Jarvela, S., & Hakkinen. (2003). The Levels of Web-Based Discussions: Using Perspective-Taking Theory as an Analytical Tool. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 77-95). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S., & Huber, G. P. (1988). Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 645-666. Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2004). An ISDT for e-Learning. Paper presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2004, Tasmania.
171 Jones, J. C. (1963). A Method of Systematic Design. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on Design Methods: Papers Presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, London, September 1962 (pp. 53-73). New York: Pergamon Press. Jones, S. G. (1999). Understanding Community in the Information Age. In P. a. Mayer (Ed.), Computer Media and Communication: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, S. G. (2002). Afterword: Building, Buying, or Being There: Imagining Online Community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., Prangsma, M., Veerman, A., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Designing Argumentation Tools for Collaborative Learning. In P. A. Kirschner, S. B. Shum & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making (pp. 51-73). London: Springer-Verlag. Keen, P. G. W. (1980). MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Keen, P. G. W., & Morton, M. S. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Keil, M., & Johnson, R. D. (2002). Feedback Channels: Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Voice Mail to E-mail. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 295-301. Kleinberg, J., & Lawrence, S. (2001). The Structure of the Web. Science, 294(30 November 2001), 1849-1850. Kling, R. (1980). Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research. Computing Surveys, 12(1), 61-110.
172 Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23. Koschmann, T. (2002). CSCL, Argumentation, and Deweyan Inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 261-269). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1988). Computer-Based Systems for Cooperative Work and Group Decision Making. ACM Computing Surveys, 20(2), 115-146. Kramer, G., & O'Fallon, T. (1997). Insight Dialogue and Insight Dialogic Inquiry. Unpublished Joint Ph.D. Dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies. Krell, D. F. (Ed.). (1977). Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings from Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Krishnamurti, J. (1980). Truth and Actuality. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers. Krishnamurti, J., & Bohm, D. (1985). The Ending of Time. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers. Kristoffersen, S., & Ljungberg, F. (1999, May 15-20, 1999). An Empirical Study of How People Establish Interaction: Implications for CSCW Session Management Models. Paper presented at the Computer Human Interaction 1999, Pittsburgh, PA. Lamb, B. (2004). Wide Open Spaces, Wikis Ready or Not. Educause Review, 39(5), 36-48. Lamb, R., & Poster, M. (2003). Transitioning Toward an Internet Culture: An Interorganizational Analysis of Identity Construction from Online Services to Intranets. In Wynn, Witley, Myers & DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology: IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference On Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 4771). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
173
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research. Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2003). Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and Success Factors. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World. Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Leahy, M. J. (2001). The Heart of Dialogue. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Fielding Institute. Lee, A. S. (1994). Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 143-157. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web. New York: Addison-Wesley. Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2000). The Cluetrain Manifesto. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building Theory from Multiple Paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672-690. Licklider, J. C. R., & Taylor, R. W. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Science and Technology, 76(April), 2131. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
174 Little, J. B. (1995). The Quincy Library group - ecosystem management plan for the national forests in Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe, California. American Forests (Jan-Feb 1995). Retrieved from FindArticles.com. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n12_v101/ai_16485953. Locke, J. L. (1998). Why We Don't Talk to Each Other Anymore: The De-Voicing of Society: How E-mail, Voice Mail, the Internet, and Technomania Are Making Us Into A Society of Strangers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Long, B., & Baecker, R. (1997). A Taxonomy of Internet Communication Tools. Paper presented at the WebNet'97. Lorenz, E. N. (1993). The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Los Angeles Times. (2005). Where is the Wikitorial? Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wikisplash,0,1349109.story. Lubrano, A. (1997). The Telegraph: How Technology Innovation Caused Social Change. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Lueg, C., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). (2003). From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces. London: Springer. Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Brigham, S. (2002). Taking Democracy to Scale: Creating a Town Hall Meeting for the Twenty-First Century. National Civic Review, 91(4), 351-366. Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2003). The Disruptive Nature of Information Technology Innovations: The Case of Internet Computing in Systems Development Organizations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 557-595. Macintosh, A., Robson, E., Smith, E., & Whyte, A. (2003). Electronic Democracy and Young People. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 43-54.
175 Maglio, P. P., & Matlock, T. (2003). The Conceptual Structure of Information Space. In K. Hook, D. Benyon & A. J. Munro (Eds.), Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach (pp. 385-403). London: Springer-Verlag. Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004). Can Absence Make a Team Grow Stronger? Harvard Business Review, May 2004, 131-137. Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., & King, N. (2000). Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-Supported InterOrganizational Virtual Team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 569-6000. Maloney, M. T., & Mulherin, J. H. (1998). The Stock Price Reaction to the Challenger Crash: Information Disclosure in an Efficient Market: SSRN. Mandviwalla, M. (1994). The Design of Group Support Systems: Generic Requirements, Design Framework, Systems Development Strategies, and a Case Study. Unpublished Dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California. Maranhao, T. (Ed.). (1990). The Interpretation of Dialogue. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266. Markova, I. (2003). Dialogically and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Markova, I., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1991). Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Markova, I., Graumann, C. F., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1995). Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice. Organization Science, 5(4), 502-527. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179-212.
176
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598. Martin, A. (2004). Addressing the Gap Between Theory and Practice: IT Project Design. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 23-42. Mascovski, M. (Ed.). (1997). Dialogue and Critical Discourse: Language, Culture, Critical Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Mattison, D. (2003). Quickiwiki, Swiki, Twiki, Zwiki, and the Plone Wars: Wiki as PJM and Collaborative Content Tool. Searcher, 11(4), 32-48. Mayo, E. (1945). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: Andover Press. McBreen, P. (2003). Questioning Extreme Programming. New York: Addison-Wesley. McClellan, J. (2000). Envisioning Learning Societies across Multiple Dimensions. Retrieved August 24, 2005, from http://www.learndev.org/dl/VS3-00g-LearnSocMultDim.pdf. McCredie, J. (2001). Herbert A. Simon 1916-2001. Educause Review, 36(3), 26-27. McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting With Technology: Ideas, Evidence, Issues and an Agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. McMaster, M. D. (1996). The Intelligence Advantage: Organizing for Complexity. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Meehl, P. E. (1983). What Social Scientists Don't Understand. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
177
Metcalfe, M. (2004). Theory: Seeking a Plain English Explanation. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 13-21. Metcalfe, M., & Lynch, M. (2003). Arguing for Information Systems Project Definition. In Wynn, Whitley, Myers & DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology: IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference On Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 295-321). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Meyer, C. F. (2002). English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Miles, V. C., McCarthy, J. C., Dix, A. J., Harrison, M. D., & Monk, A. F. (1993). Reviewing Designs for a Synchronous-Asynchronous Group Editing Environment. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (pp. 137-211). London: Springer-Verlag. Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. 211277). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Miranda, S. M., & Saunders, C. S. (2003). The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 87-106. Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2001). Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Canadian Journal of Educational Adminstration and Policy, Issue #19, February 24, 2001. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/mitchelland sackney.html. Mitra, S. (2005). Hole In The Wall. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com. Mitroff, I. I. (2004). William James and a Theory of Thinking. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 83-89.
178 Mittra, S. S. (1986). Decision Support Systems: Tools and Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (1998). Dialectical Approaches to Studying Personal Relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Moore, J. T. S. (Writer) (2002). Revolution OS: Wonderview Productions, LLC. Myerson, G. (2001). Heidegger, Habermas and the Mobile Phone. Cambridge, U.K.: Icon Books. Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. New York: Routledge. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books. Nelson, T. (1999). A New Home for the Mind. In P. A. Mayer (Ed.), Computer Media and Communication: A Reader (pp. 120-128). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113-126. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (Eds.). (2003). Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Silent Participants: Getting to Know Lurkers Better. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 110132). London: Springer-Verlag. Nov, O. (2007). What Motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 60-64. Noveck, B. S. (2003). Designing Deliberative Democracy in Cyberspace: The Role of the Cyber-Lawyer. Journal of Science and Technology Law, 9(1), 1-91. Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61.
179
O'Day, V. L., Bobrow, D. G., & Shirley, M. (1998). Network Community Design: A Social-Technical Design Circle. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 315-337. Ogg, E. (2008). Five reasons not to fear a $200 Linux PC. Tech News on ZDNet. Retrieved from http://news.zdnet.com/21009584_22-6227419.html?tag=nl.e539. Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386. Olfman, L. (2003). IS371 Knowledge Management Course Syllabus. Olfman, L., Raman, M., & Stager, J. C. (2005). An Analysis of the Use of "Tikiwiki" in Graduate Information Systems Classes. Paper presented at the HICSS 2005 Workshop: Socialware for Learning Environments. O'Neill, M. E. (2005, February 23-27). Automated Use of a Wiki for Collaborative Lecture Notes. Paper presented at the SIGCSE '05, St. Louis, Missouri. Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1), [Online]. Pankoke-Babatz, U., Klockner, K., & Phillip, J. (1999, August 22-26). Norms and Conventions in Collaborative Systems. Paper presented at the HCI International '99, Munich, Germany. Partington, D. (Ed.). (2002). Essential Skills for Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Paul, D. L., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2004). A Field Study of the Effect of Interpersonal Trust on Virtual Collaborative Relationship Performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183-227. Pauleen, D. J. (2004). Virtual Teams: Projects, Protocols, and Processes. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing. Peat, F. D. (1997). Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
180
Peffers, K. (2004). There is Nothing So Practical As Good Theory: Exploring the Conjecture. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), iii-v. Pemberton, L. (1996). Telltales and Overhearers: Participant Roles in Electronic Mail Communication. In J. H. Connolly & L. Pemberton (Eds.), Linguistic Concepts and Methods in CSCW (pp. 145-161). London: Springer-Verlag. Pfaffenberger, B. (2003). "A Standing Wave in the Web of Our Communications": Usenet and the Socio-Technical Construction of Cyberspace Values. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 20-43). London: Springer-Verlag. Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365395. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578. Powazek, D. M. (2002). Design for Community: The Art of Connecting Real People in Virtual Places. Indianapolis: New Riders. Power, D. J. (2002). Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online Deliberations and Its Influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1(1), 303-329. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hubscher, R. (2003). Improving Navigation and Learning in Hypertext Environments With Navigable Concept Maps. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 395428.
181 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Pylkkanen, P. (Ed.). (1999). Bohm-Biederman Correspondence / David Bohm and Charles Biederman: Volume One: Creativity and Science. New York: Routledge. Raghu, T. S., Ramesh, R., Chang, A.-M., & Whinston, A. B. (2001). Collaborative Decision Making: A Connection Paradigm for Dialectical Support. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 363383. Rahlff, O.-W., Rolfsen, R. K., Herstad, J., & Thanh, D. V. (1999, August 22-26). Context and Expectations in Teleconversations. Paper presented at the HCI International '99, Munich, Germany. Raikundalia, G. K. (1999). Results of Experiments in Text-Based, Synchronous, Distributed, Formal Electronic Meetings. In H.-J. Bullinger & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Communication, Cooperation, and Application Design. Proceedings of HCI International '99, Munich, Germany, August 22-26, 1999. (Vol. 2, pp. 507-511). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Raikundalia, G. K. (1999, August 22-26). Synchronous, Dynamic Derivative Generation in Computer-Supported Meetings. Paper presented at the HCI International '99, Hamburg, Germany. Raman, M. (2005). Knowledge Management for Emergency Preparedness: An Action Research Study. Unpublished Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California. Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing Knowledge Management Systems for Teaching and Learning with Wiki Technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(3), 311-320. Rasmussen, T. (2000). Social Theory and Communication Technology. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Read, B. (2005). Romantic Poetry Meets 21st-Century Technology. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i45/45a03501.htm.
182
Reder, S., & Schwab, R. G. (1990, October). The Temporal Structure of Cooperative Activity. Paper presented at the CSCW '90. Reinig, B. A. (2003). Toward an Understanding of Satisfaction with the Process and Outcomes of Teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 65-83. Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (Eds.). (2002). Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A Primer in Theory Construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Rice, R. E. (1992). Contexts of Research on Organizational ComputerMediated Communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 113-144). New York: Havester Wheatsheaf. Rideout, V. (2003). Canadians Connected and Unplugged: Public Access to the Internet and the Digital Divide. In M. P. McCauley, E. E. Peterson, B. L. Artz & D. Halleck (Eds.), Public Broadcasting and the Public Interest. London: M.E. Sharpe. Robbins-Sponaas, R. J., & Nolan, J. (2005). MOOs: Polysynchronous Collaborative Virtual Environments. In K. St. Amant & P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Internet-Based Workplace Communications: Industry & Academic Applications (pp. 130-155). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
183 Rothaermel, F. T., & Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual Internet Communities and Commercial Success: Individual and Community-Level Grounded in the Atypical Case of TimeZone.com. Journal of Management, 27, 297-312. Sallnas, E.-L. (2002). Collaboration in Multi-Modal Virtual Worlds: Comparing Touch, Text, Voice and Video. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments (pp. 172-187). London: Springer-Verlag. Salon. (2007, September 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 9 October 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salon_%28gathering %29&oldid=159951003 Sandra, J. N. H., & the Editors of Utne Reader. (1997). The Joy of Conversation: The Complete Guide to Salons. Minneapolis: Utne Reader Books. Saward, M. (2000, February 4-6, 2000). Direct and Deliberative Democracy. Paper presented at the Deliberating about Deliberative Democracy, Universtiy of Texas at Austin. Schein, E. H. (1993). On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51. Schneider, K. G. (2004, August 31). Something Wiki This Way Comes. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/083104/something_wiki_ this_.php. Schneiderman, B. (2003). Leonardo's Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (Eds.). (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Schoem, D., Hurtado, S., Sevig, T., Chesler, M., & Sumida, S. H. (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Democracy at Work in Theory and Practice. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
184
Schoem, D., & Saunders, S. (2001). Adapting Intergroup Dialogue Processes For Use in a Variety of Settings. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 328-344). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Schonberger, R. J. (1980). MIS Design: A Contingency Approach. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 13-20. Schroeder, R. (2002). Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: Key Issues, Common Themes, and a Framework for Research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London: SpringerVerlag. Schroll, M. A. (1997). The Philosophical Legacy of David Bohm, Its Relationship to Transpersonal Psychology and the Emergence of Ecopsychology: Searching for a Coherent, Co-Evolutionary, Sustainable Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Graduate School of the Union Institute. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2002). The Blind and the Paralytic. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 227-260). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Seabrook, J. (1997). Deeper: Adventures on the Net. New York: Touchstone. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
185 Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Currency Doubleday. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The Contingent Effects of Management Support and Task Interdependence on Successful Information Systems Implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 533-555. Sharrock, W., & Button, G. (1997). On the Relevance of Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action for CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 6, 369-389. Shaviro, S. (2003). Connected or What it Means to Live in the Network Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley & Sons. Shum, S. B. (2003). The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making (pp. 3-24). London: Springer-Verlag. Shye, S. (Ed.). (1978). Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Simon, H. A. (2001). The Steam Engine and the Computer: What Makes Technology Revolutionary? Educause Review, 36(3), 2839. Simon, J. I. (1980). Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and Its Decline. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.
186 Simon, L. D., Corrales, J., & Wolfensberger, D. R. (2002). Democracy and the Internet: Allies or Adversaries? Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.). (1993). The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C., & Oxford University Press. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press. Slotte, S. (2003). Approaching Systems Intelligence, Through Dialogue and Shared Values: Theoretical Considerations. Helsinki: The Systems Intelligence Research Group, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. Slotte, S. (2004). Rethinking Dialogue - Philosophy and Systems Intelligence. In Systems Analysis Research Reports A88. Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London: Routledge. Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge. Smith, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Theory Building for Learning How to Learn. Chicago: Educational Studies Press. Snowdon, D., & Grasso, A. (2002, April 20-25). Diffusing Information in Organizational Settings: Learning from Experience. Paper presented at the CHI 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Snowdon, D. N., Churchill, E. F., & Frecon, E. (Eds.). (2004). Inhabited Information Spaces: Living With Your Data. London: Springer. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social Influence and the Influence of the 'Social' in Computer-Mediated Communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 30-65). New York: Havester Wheatsheaf. Sprague, R. H. J. (1980). A Framework for the Development of Decision Support Systems. MIS Quarterly, 4(4), 1-26.
187 Stager, J. C., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2004). Wiki as a Knowledge Management Repository: A Case Study. (Working Paper). Stanley, J. W., Weare, C., & Musso, J. (2004). Participation, Democratic Deliberation, and the Internet: Lessons from a National Forum on Commercial Vehicle Safety. Administration and Society, 36(5), 503-527. Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85-117. Stewart, A. (1998). The Ethnographer's Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Stroomer, S., & Van Oostendorp, H. (2003). Analyzing Communication in Task Teams. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a Digital World (pp. 175-204). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Sullivan, T. J. (2003). The Value of Privacy in a Deliberative Democracy. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384. Swanson, E. B. (2003). Talking the Innovation Walk. In Wynn, Whitley, Myers & DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology: IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference On Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 15-31). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
188 Swisher, K., & The Wall Street Journal. (2004). 'Wiki' May Alter How Employees Work Together. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://press.jot.com/archives/2004/07/29/wiki-may-alter-howemployees-work-together/. Syring, M., & Hasenkamp, U. (1996). Communication-Orientated Approaches to Support Multi-User Processes in Office Work. In S. Kirn & G. O'Hare (Eds.), Cooperative Knowledge Processing: The Key Technology for Intelligent Organizations (pp. 43-63). London: Springer-Verlag. Tahtinen, U. (1976). Ahimsa: Non-violence in Indian tradition. London: Rider. Takatsuka, S. (2001). Consciousness and the Flow of Meaning: An Inquiry into Bohm's Dialogue. Unpublished Dissertation, The Union Institute. Tarski, A. (1969). Truth and Proof. Scientific American, 220(6), 63-77. Taylor, C., & Time.com. (2005, May 29). It's a Wiki, Wiki World. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1066904, 00.html. Taylor, J. (2002). A Review of the Use of Asynchronous E-Seminars in Undergraduate Education. In R. Hazemi & S. Hailes (Eds.), The Digital University - Building a Learning Community (pp. 125138). London: Springer-Verlag. Te'eni, D. (2001). Review: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 251-312. Te'eni, D., Sagie, A., Schwarz, D. G., Zaidman, N., & AmichaiHamburger, Y. (2001). The Process of Organizational Communication: A Model and Field Study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(1), 6-20. Te'eni, D., & Schwarz, A. (2004). Communication in the IS Community: A Call for Research and Design. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 521-543.
189 Terhune, P., & Terhune, G. (1998). QLG Case Study. Paper presented at the Engaging, Empowering, and Negotiating Community: Strategies for Conservation and Development. Textalyser. (2004). Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://textalyser.net. Thatcher, J. B., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Sel-Efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 381-396. The Co-Intelligence Institute. (2003). The Co-Intelligence Institute. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.cointelligence.org/P-dialogue.html. The Table. (2004). Don Factor, William Van Den Heuvel, and Franis Engel Collapsed the Former David Bohm Dialogue. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from http://thinkg.net/TT/don_factor_collapses_the_table_TT.html. The Table. (2004). The Table - David Bohm Dialogue Group On-Line. Retrieved January 29, 2005, from http://thinkg.net/TT/. Thelwall, M. (2004). Link Analysis: An Information Science Approach. New York: Elsevier Academic Press. Thomas, J. C. (1998). Fostering the Collaborative Creation of Knowledge: A White Paper. Retrieved March 16, 2005, from http://www.research.ibm.com/knowsoc/project_paper.html. Tichy, W. F. (1998). Should Computer Scientists Experiment More? Computer, 31(5), 32-40. TikiWiki.org. (2004a, August 23, 2004). WhyWikiWorks. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks. TikiWiki.org. (2004b). Welcome to TikiWiki. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php. TikiWiki.org. (2004c). Tiki Features. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiFeatures.
190 Trauth, E. M., & Jessup, L. M. (2000). Understanding ComputerMediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 43-79. Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Touchstone. Tyler, K., & Branczyk, S. (2007). Seedwiki. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.seedwiki.com/. Valle, C., Raybourn, E. M., Prinz, W., & Borges, M. R. S. (2003, June, 2003). Group Storytelling to Support Tacit Knowledge Externalization. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Human - Computer Interaction, Crete, Greece. Vallee, J. (2003). The Heart of the Internet: An Insider's View of the Origin and Promise of the On-Line Revolution. Charlottesville, Virginia: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc. Valovic, T. S. (2000). Digital Mythologies: The Hidden Complexities of the Internet. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Designing External Representations to Support Solving Wicked Problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486-489. van Oostendorp, H. (Ed.). (2003). Cognition in a Digital World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Veerman, A. (2002). Constructive Discussions Through Electronic Dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
191 Venable, J. R. (2006). The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. Paper presented at the DESRIST 2006 Conference (Claremont, CA). Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April 24-29, 2004). Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations. Paper presented at the CHI 2004, Vienna, Austria. Voetterl, R. A. (2002). Learning As Co-Creation: Understanding the Epistemological and Pedagogical Implications of Bohmian Dialogue in Higher Education. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Portland State University. von Baeyer, H. C. (2004). Information: The New Language of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vonnegut, K., Jr. (1963). Cat's Cradle. New York: Delacorte Press. Wachter, R. M., Gupta, J. N. D., & Quaddus, M. A. (2000). IT Takes a Village: Virtual Communities in Support of Education. International Journal of Information Management, 20, 473-489. Wagner, C. (2003). Put Another (B)Log on the Wire: Publishing Learning Logs as Weblogs. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(2), 131-132. Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A Technology for Conversational Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 265-289. Wagner, C., Cheung, K. S. K., Ip, R. K. F., & Bottcher, S. (2006). Building Semantic Webs for e-government with Wiki Technology. Electronic Government, 3(1), 36-55. Wallace, P. (1999). The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36-59.
192 Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (2004). Assessing Information System Design Theory in Perspective: How Useful Was Our 1992 Initial Rendition? Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 43-58. Walton, M. (2004). Bloggers Get Convention Credentials. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/23/conventionblo ggers/index.html. Wang, J., Chen, Z., Tao, L., Ma, W.-Y., & Wenyin, L. (2002). Ranking User's Relevance to a Topic through Link Analysis on Web Logs. Paper presented at the WIDM'02, November 8, 2002, McLean, Virginia. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who Participates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on the Internet and the Mass Public. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26-42. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press. Weber, R. (2003). The Problem of the Problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii-ix. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.
193 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Whetten, D. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (2003). The Dynamics of Mass Interaction. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces (pp. 79-91). London: Springer-Verlag. Winborne, W., & Smith, A. (2001). Not Just Dialogue for Dialogue's Sake: The National Conference for Community and Justice. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wirth, N. (1971). Program Development by Stepwise Refinement. Communications of the ACM, 14(4), 221-227. Yankelovich, D. (2001). The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict Into Cooperation. New York: Touchstone. Zappen, J. P. (2004). The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Zhou, X., & Conati, C. (2003, January 12-15). Inferring User Goals from Personality and Behavior in a Causal Model of User Affect. Paper presented at the IUI '03, Miami, Florida. Zuniga, X., & Nagda, B. R. A. (2001). Design Considerations in Intergroup Dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 306-327). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
194
Index of Appendices Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
– – – – – – –
Dialogue-A Proposal Presentation material on Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues Informed Consent Form Blank survey form Entire wiki (internal and external links) Wiki with internal links only Corpus of the Bohmian Dialogue
dialogue_proposal
Page 1 of 8
Appendix 1
195
Dialogue - A proposal By David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett
Contents: l l l l l
l l
Dialogue - A proposal Why dialogue Purpose and meaning What dialogue is not How to start a dialogue ¡ Suspension ¡ Numbers ¡ Duration ¡ Leadership ¡ Subject matter Dialogue in existing organizations Copyright notice
Dialogue - A proposal Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought. In Dialogue, a group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas, beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their interactions. It provides an opportunity to participate in a process that displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the often puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending opinions about particular issues. Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise. Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers. http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal Appendix 1 However, we feel that it is important that its meaning and background be understood.
Page 2 of 8 196
Our approach to this form of Dialogue arose out of a series of conversations begun in 1983 in which we inquired into David Bohm's suggestion that a pervasive incoherence in the process of human thought is the essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind. This led us, in succeeding years, to initiate a number of larger conversations and seminars held in different countries with various groups of people which in turn began to take the form of Dialogues. As we proceeded it became increasing clear to us that this process of Dialogue is a powerful means of understanding how thought functions. We became aware that we live in a world produced almost entirely by human enterprise and thus, by human thought. The room in which we sit, the language in which these words are written, our national boundaries, our systems of value, and even that which we take to be our direct perceptions of reality are essentially manifestations of the way human beings think and have thought. We realize that without a willingness to explore this situation and to gain a deep insight into it, the real crises of our time cannot be confronted, nor can we find anything more than temporary solutions to the vast array of human problems that now confront us. We are using the word "thought" here to signify not only the products ofour conscious intellect but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and desires. It also includes such subtle, conditioned manifestations of learning as those that allow us to make sense of a succession of separate scenes within a cinema film or to translate the abstract symbols on road signs along with the tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing basic, mechanical skills such as riding a bicycle. In essence thought, in this sense of the word, is the active response of memory in every phase of life. Virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, transformed and applied in thought. To further clarify this approach, we propose that, with the aid of a little close attention, even that which we call rational thinking can be see to consist largely of responses conditioned and biased by previous thought. If we look carefully at what we generally take to be reality we begin to see that it includes a collection of concepts, memories and reflexes colored by our personal needs, fears, and desires, all of which are limited and distorted by the boundaries of language and the habits of our history, sex and culture. It is extremely difficult to disassemble this mixture or to ever be certain whether what we are perceiving - or what we may think about those perceptions - is at all accurate. What makes this situation so serious is that thought generally conceals this problems from our immediate awareness and succeeds in generating a sense that the way each of us interprets the world is the only sensible way in which it can be interpreted. What is needed is a means by which we can slow down the process of thought in order to be able to observe it while it is actually occurring. Our physical bodies have this capability but thought seems to lack it. If you raise your arm you know that you are willing the act, that somebody else is not doing it for or to you. This is called proprioception. We can be aware of our body's actions while they are actually occurring but we generally lack this sort of skill in the realm of thought. For example, we do not notice that our attitude toward another person may be profoundly affected by the way we think and feel about someone else who might share certain aspects of his behavior or even of his appearance. Instead, we assume that our attitude toward her arises directly from her actual conduct. The problem of thought is that the kind of attention required to notice this incoherence seems seldom to be available when it is most needed. Why dialogue Dialogue is concerned with providing a space within which such attention can be given. It allows a
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal
Page 3 of 8
Appendix 1 197 display of thought and meaning that makespossible a kind of collective proprioception or immediate mirroring back of both the content of thought and the less apparent, dynamic structures that govern it. In Dialogue this can be experienced both individually and collectively. Each listener is able to reflect back to each speaker, and to the rest of the group, a view of some of the assumptions and unspoken implications of what is being expressed along with that which is being avoided. It creates the opportunity for each participant to examine the preconceptions, prejudices and the characteristic patterns that lie behind his or her thoughts, opinions, beliefs and feelings, along with the roles he or she tends habitually to play. And it offers an opportunity to share these insights. The word "dialogue" derives from two roots: "dia" which means "through" and "logos" which means "the word", or more particularly, "the meaning of the word." The image it gives is of a river of meaning flowing around and through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue - one can even have a Dialogue with oneself - but the sort of Dialogue that we are suggesting involves a group of between twenty and forty people seated in a circle talking together. Some notion of the significance of such a Dialogue can be found in reports of hunter-gather bands of about this size, who, when they met to talk together, had no apparent agenda nor any predetermined purpose. Nevertheless, such gatherings seemed to provide and reinforce a kind of cohesive bond or fellowship that allowed its participants to know what was required of them without the need for instruction or much further verbal interchange. In other words, what might be called a coherent culture of shared meaning emerged within the group. It is possible that this coherence existed in the past for human communities before technology began to mediate our experience of the living world. Dr. Patrick de Mare, a psychiatrist working in London, has conducted pioneering work along similar lines under modern conditions. He set up groups of about the same size, the purpose of which he described in terms of "sociotherapy". His view is that the primary cause of the deep and pervasive sickness in our society can be found at the socio-cultural level and that such groups can serve as microcultures from which the source of the infirmity of our large civilization can be exposed. Our experience has led us to extend this notion of Dialogue by emphasizing and giving special attention to the fundamental role of the activity of thought in the origination and maintenance of this condition. As a microcosm of the large culture, Dialogue allows a wide spectrum of possible relationships to be revealed. It can disclose the impact of society on the individual and the individual's impact on society. It can display how power is assumed or given away and how pervasive are the generally unnoticed rules of the system that constitutes our culture. But it is most deeply concerned with understanding the dynamics of how thought conceives such connections. It is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal. Any such attempt would distort and obscure the processes that the Dialogue has set out to explore. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought behaves differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. Such an activity is very rare in our culture. Purpose and meaning Usually people gather either to accomplish a task or to be entertained, both of which can be categorized as predetermined purposes. But by its very nature Dialogue is not consistent with any such purposes beyond the interest of its participants in the unfoldment and revelation of the deeper collective meanings that may be revealed. These may on occasion be entertaining, enlightening, lead to new insights or
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal
Page 4 of 8
Appendix 1 198 address existing problems. But surprisingly, in its early stages, the dialogue will often lead to the experience of frustration. A group of people invited to give their time and serious attention to a task that has no apparent goal and is not being led in any detectable direction may quickly find itself experiencing a great deal of anxiety or annoyance. This can lead to the desire on the part of some, either to break up the group or to attempt to take control and give it a direction. Previously unacknowledged purposes will reveal themselves. Strong feelings will be exposed, along with the thoughts that underlie them. Fixed positions may be taken and polarization will often result. This is all part of the process. It is what sustains the Dialogue and keeps it constantly extending creatively into new domains. In an assembly of between twenty and forty people, extremes of frustration, anger, conflict or other difficulties may occur, but in a group of this size such problems can be contained with relative ease. In fact, they can become the central focus of the exploration in what might be understood as a kind of "meta-dialogue", aimed at clarifying the process of Dialogue itself. As sensitivity and experience increase, a perception of shared meaning emerges in which people find that they are neither opposing one another, nor are they simply interacting. Increasing trust between members of the group - and trust in the process itself - leads to the expression of the sorts of thoughts and feelings that are usually kept hidden. There is no imposed consensus, nor is there any attempt to avoid conflict. No single individual or sub-group is able to achieve dominance because every single subject, including domination and submission, is always available to beconsidered. Participants find that they are involved in an ever changing and developing pool of common meaning. A shared content of consciousness emerges which allows a level of creativity and insight that is not generally available to individuals or to groups that interact in more familiar ways. This reveals an aspect of Dialogue that Patrick de Mare has called koinonia, a word meaning "impersonal fellowship", which was originally used to describe the early form of Athenian democracy in which all the free men of the city gathered to govern themselves. As this fellowship is experience it begins to take precedence over the more overt content of the conversation (sic). It is an important stage in the Dialogue, a moment of increased coherence, where the group is able to move beyond its perceived blocks or limitations and into new territory, But it is also a point at which a group may begin to relax and bask in the "high" that accompanies the experience. This is the point that sometimes causes confusion between Dialogue and some forms of psychotherapy. Participants may want to hold the group together in order to preserve the pleasurable feeling of security and belonging that accompanies the state. This is similar to that sense of community often reached in therapy groups or in team building workshops where it is taken to be the evidence of the success of the method used. Beyond such a point, however, lie even more significant and subtle realms of creativity, intelligence and understanding that can be approached only by persisting in the process of inquiry and risking re-entry into areas of potentially chaotic or frustrating uncertainty. What dialogue is not Dialogue is not discussion, a word that shares its root meaning with "percussion" and "concussion," both of which involve breaking things up. Nor is it debate. These forms of conversation contain an implicit tendency to point toward a goal, to hammer out an agreement, to try to solve a problem or have one's opinion prevail. It is also not a "salon", which is a kind of gathering that is both informal and most often characterized by an intention to entertain, exchange friendship, gossip and other information. Although the word "dialogue" has often been used in similar ways, its deeper, root meaning implies that it is not
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal Appendix 1 primarily interested in any of this.
Page 5 of 8 199
Dialogue is not a new name for T-groups or sensitivity training, although it is superficially similar to these and other related forms of group work. Its consequences may be psychotherapeutic but it does not attempt to focus on removing the emotional blocks of any one participant nor to teach, train or analyze. Nevertheless, it is an arena in which learning and the dissolution of blocks can and often do take place. It is not a technique for problem solving or conflict resolution, although problems may well be resolved during the course of a Dialogue, or perhaps later, as a result of increased understanding and fellowship that occurs among the participants. It is, as we have emphasized, primarily a means of exploring the field of thought. Dialogue resembles a number of other forms of group activity and may at times include aspects of them but in fact it is something new to our culture. We believe that it is an activity that might well prove vital to the future health of our civilization. How to start a dialogue Suspension Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., lies at the very heartof Dialogue. It is one of its most important new aspects. It is not easily grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and subtle. Suspension involves attention, listening and looking and is essential to exploration. Speaking is necessary, of course, for without it there would be little in the Dialogue to explore, But the actual process of exploration takes place during listening -- not only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving them your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed while they are actually taking place. If you are able to give attention to, say, the strong feelings that might accompany the expression of a particular thought either your own or anothers -- and to sustain that attention, the activity of the thought process will tend to slow you down. This may permit you to begin to see the deeper meanings underlying your thought process and to sense the often incoherent structure of any action that you might otherwise carry out automatically. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such feelings and give its attention to them then the overall process that flows from thought, to feeling, to acting-out within the group, can also slow down and reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with any of its implicit distortions, leading to what might be described as a new kind of coherent, collective intelligence. To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious attention to the overall process we have been considering -- both on one's own and within a group. This involves what may at first appear to be an arduous kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's ability to give such attention constantly develops so that less and less effort is required. Numbers A Dialogue works best with between twenty and forty people seated facing one another in a single circle. A group of this size allows for the emergence and observation of different subgroups or subcultures that can help to reveal some off the ways in which thought operatives collectively.,This is important because the differences between such subcultures areoften an unrecognized cause of failed communication and conflict. Smaller groups, on the other hand, lack the requisite diversity needed to reveal these tendencies and will generally emphasize more familiar personal and family roles and
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal
Page 6 of 8
Appendix 1 relationships.
200
With a few groups we have had as many as sixty participants, but with that large a number the process becomes unwieldy. Two concentric circles are required to seat everybody so that they can see and hear one another. This places those in the back row at a disadvantage, and fewer participants have an opportunity to speak. We might mention here that some participants tend to talk a great deal while others find difficulty in speaking up in groups. It is worth remembering, though, that the word "participation" has two meanings: "to partake of", and "to take part in". Listening is at least as important as speaking. Often the quieter participants will begin to speak up more as they become familiar with the Dialogue experience while the more dominant individuals will find themselves tending to speak less and listen more. Duration A Dialogue needs some time to get going. It is an unusual way of participating with others and some sort of introduction is required in which the meaning of the whole activity can be communicated. But even with a clear introduction, when the group begins to talk together it will often experience confusion, frustration, and a self-conscious concern as to whether or not it is actually engaging in Dialogue. It would be very optimistic to assume that a Dialogue would begin to flow or move toward any great depth during its first meeting. It is important to point out that perseverance is required. In setting up Dialogues it is useful at the start to agree the length of the session and for someone to take responsibility for calling time at the end. We have found that about two hours is optimum. Longer sessions risk a fatigue factor which tends to diminish the quality of participation. Many T-groups use extended "marathon" sessions which use this fatigue factor to break down some of the inhibitions of the participants. Dialogue on the other hand, is more concerned with exploring the social constructs and inhibitions that affect our communications rather than attempting to bypass them. The more regularly the group can meet, the deeper and more meaningful will be the territory explored. Weekends have often been used to allow a sequence of sessions, but if the Dialogue is to continue for an extended period of time we suggest that there be at least a one week interval between each succeeding session to allow time for individual reflection and further thinking. There is no limit to how long a Dialogue group may continue its exploration. But it would be contrary to the spirit of Dialogue for it to become fixed or institutionalized. This suggests openess to constantly shifting membership, changing schedules, or other manifestations of a serious attention to an implicit rigidity which might take hold. Or merely, the dissolving of a group after some period. Leadership A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. Dialogue is vulnerable to being manipulated, but its spirit is not consistent with this. Hierarchy has no place in Dialogue. Nevertheless, in the early stages some guidance is required to help the participants realize the subtle differences between Dialogue and other forms of group process. At least one or, preferably two, experienced facilitators are essential. Their role should be to occasionally point out situations that might seem to be presenting sticking points for the group, in other words, to aid the process of collective proprioception, but these interventions should never be manipulative nor obtrusive. Leaders are
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal
Page 7 of 8
Appendix 1 201 participants just like everybody else. Guidance, when it is felt to be necessary, should take the form of "leading from behind" and preserve the intention of making itself redundant as quickly as possible. However, this proposal is not intended as a substitute for experienced facilitators. We suggest, though, that its contents be reviewed with the group during its initial meeting so that all the participants can be satisfied that they are embarking upon the same experiment. Subject matter The Dialogue can begin with any topic of interest to the participants. if some members of the group feel that certain exchanges or subjects are disturbing or not fitting, it is important that they express these thoughts within the Dialogue. No content should be excluded. Often participants will gossip or express their dissatisfactions or frustration after a session but it is exactly this sort of material that offers the most fertile ground for moving the Dialogue into deeper realms of meaning and coherence beyond the superficiality of "group think", good manners or dinner party conversation. Dialogue in existing organizations So far we have been primarily discussing Dialogues that bring together individuals from a variety of backgrounds rather than from existing organizations. But its value may also be perceived by members of an organization as a way of increasing and enriching their own corporate creativity. In this case the process of Dialogue will change considerably. Members of an existing organization will have already developed a number of different sorts of relationship between one another and with their organization as a whole. here may be a pre-existing hierarchy or a felt need to protect one's colleagues, team or department. There may be a fear of expressing thoughts that might be seen as critical of those who are higher in the organization or of norms within the organizational culture. Careers or the social acceptance of individual members might appear to be threatened by participation in a process that emphasizes transparency, openness, honesty, spontaneity, and the sort of deep interest in others that can draw out areas of vulnerability that may long have been kept hidden. In an existing organization the Dialogue will very probably have to begin with an exploration of all the doubts and fears that participation will certainly raise. Members may have to begin with a fairly specific agenda from which they eventually can be encouraged to diverge. This differs from the approach taken with one-time or self-selected groupings in which participants are free to begin with any subject matter. But as we have mentioned no content should be excluded because the impulse to exclude a subject is itself rich material for the inquiry. Most organizations have inherent, predetermined purposes and goals that are seldom questioned. At first this might also seem to be inconsistent with the free and open play of thought that is so intrinsic to the Dialogue process. However, this too can be overcome if the participants are helped from the very beginning to realize that considerations of such subjects can prove essential to the well-being of the organization and can in turn help to increase the participants self-esteem along with the regard in which he or she may be held by others. The creative potential of Dialogue is great enough to allow a temporary suspension of any of the structures and relationships that go to make up an organization.
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
dialogue_proposal
Page 8 of 8
Appendix 1 202 Finally, we would like to make clear that we are not proposing Dialogue as a panacea nor as a method or technique designed to succeed all other forms of social interaction. Not everyone will find it useful nor, certainly, will it be useful in all contexts. There is great value to be found in many group psychotherapeutic methods and there are many tasks that require firm leadership and a well-formed organizational structure. Much of the sort of work we have described here can be accomplished independently, and we would encourage this. Many of the ideas suggested in this proposal are still the subjects of our own continuing exploration. We do not advise that they be taken as fixed but rather that they be inquired into as a part of your own Dialogue. The spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that, nevertheless, has immense power and reveals coherent purpose. Once begun it becomes continuing adventure that can open the way to significant and creative change.
Copyright notice Copyright © 1991 by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to distribute it to others for noncommercial purposes including discussion, inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups so long as the material is not altered and this notice is included. All other rights are reserved.
If you will read the copyright notice on Dialogue - A Proposal (reproduced above) you will see that we are keen to get its message as widely distributed as possible. So if there are any listservers or FTP or WWW sites that it would be useful on, please put it out. We would like to know where it ends up if that's possible. We do want to keep the copyright notice intact because it makes the point that it not to be used without express permission for any commercial purposes. Sarah Bohm Don Factor. Peter Garrett. This text was transcribed by Richard Burg. email:
[email protected] There is an open letter, called "On Facilitation and Purpose" by Donald Factor, which refers to this paper. In that letter Don Factor modifies his views expressed in the section "Dialogue in existing organizations" and adds something about frustation. This web page was created by William van den Heuvel. email:
[email protected]
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
3/11/2004
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
203
Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
John C. Stager March 30, 2006
Agenda • • • • •
What is dialogue? What is a Bohmian Dialogue? What is a wiki? For what is a wiki used? Why are we here?
1
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
204
Games There are at least two types of games: finite games and infinite games. ¾A finite game is played for the purpose of winning. ¾An infinite game is played for the purpose of continuing the game. Source: Carse (1986)
Background • Bohm’s On Dialogue – What is Dialogue? • Not a zero-sum game; not a finite game. • Play with not against; maybe an infinite game. • “is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise” (Bohm, Factor, & Garrett, 1991).
2
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
205
How is dialogue done? •An assembly of twenty to forty people •extremes are seen •a wide spectrum of ideas and assumptions •sit facing each other in a circle •Time for a dialogue is dependent on the number and frequency of meetings. •No controlling authority in a dialogue; it is a conversation among equals. •No subject is prohibited in a dialogue. •The only requirement on the part of the participants is a suspension of thoughts, impulses, and judgments which involves “attention, listening, and looking [ . . .] it involves exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions” during the listening process (Bohm et al., 1991).
Significance of the topic “There has been a growing feeling of concern to solve what is now commonly called ‘the problem of communication.’ But if one observes efforts to solve this problem, he will notice that different groups who are trying to do this are not actually able to listen to each other. As a result, the very attempt to improve communication leads frequently to yet more confusion, and the consequent sense of frustration inclines people ever further toward aggression and violence, rather that toward mutual understanding and trust.” (Bohm, 1996, pp. 1-2)
3
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
206
Significance of the topic (continued) Werner Heisenberg writes on the necessity of conversation and collaboration in his book Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. He states: “science is rooted in conversations. [ . . . ] For in it [conversation] the creative process of science is made manifest; it helps to explain how the cooperation of different people may culminate in scientific results of the utmost importance.” (Heisenberg, 1971, pp. xvii-xviii)
Examples Dialogue Project of MIT •A steel mill that went from 5,000 employees in 1980 to less than 1,000 (in 1992) was having labor problems. •Dialogue was used to reconcile the management of the steel plant with the union employees. •As an outcome of the dialogue, one of the participants (a union man) said, “you know, I can’t tell who is on what side anymore.” (Isaacs, 1993) National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) •Cincinnati (community unity) •Birmingham (community building) •Buffalo (cross-cultural understanding) •Los Angeles (interracial and interfaith understanding) (Winborne & Smith, 2001)
4
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
207
Why? • “Man, if you got to ask, you’ll never know.” -Louis Armstrong • Baby metaphor of Paul McCready designer of the Gossamer Condor and Albatross (human powered aircraft)
What stands in the way? •Geography •Time •Technology “In the 1980’s technology was expected to provide more access to democracy. However, technologies have tended, at least initially, to mirror and reinforce rather than transform the societies in which they emerge, the new protodemocratic electronic and digital technologies that seemed so promising twenty-five years ago have in fact become part of the problem that confronts strong democrats, not part of the solution.” (Barber, 2003)
5
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
208
Wiki What is a wiki? For what is it used?
6
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
209
What’s a Wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What’s a Wiki (continued) • Wiki.org defines wiki as "the simplest online database that could possibly work." • A wiki is a website that is editable by anyone with access. • Developed by Ward Cunningham based on Apple’s HyperCard as a collaborative environment for programmers.
7
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
210
How Wikilaw Works
Source: http://wiki-law.org/mwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
E-mail Problems • Of the 250 e-mails an investment banker received each day, he says "85% were totally not important to my job." • Legitimate e-mail will drop to 8% this year, down from 12% last year, according to Redwood City (Calif.) e-mail filtering outfit Postini Inc.
8
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
211
the e-mail blow-off factor is rising • Despite corporate filters, more than 60% of what swarms into corporate in-boxes is spam: – scams about millions languishing in nonexistent bank accounts – interoffice status contests – people plopping unwanted meetings onto Outlook calendars
Wiki as a Collaborative Communication Forum • Anyone can change or delete information aggregated in a wiki • Because they collect HTML information in a freely editable way, wikis are often compared to blogs, but: – Blogs have one author – Wikis have many
9
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
212
Killer App • Internet research firm Gartner Group predicts that wikis will become mainstream collaboration tools in at least 50% of companies by 2009. • At Ann Arbor (Mich.)-based Soar Technology Inc., an artificial-intelligence company that works on projects for the Office of Naval Research, wikis enable the company to slash in half the time it takes to complete projects. Soar engineer Jacob Crossman says that's because the wikis eliminate the usual flurry of back-and-forth attachments and resulting document-version confusion that's rife in e-mail. • At Dresdner, Rangaswami says that among the earliest and most aggressive adopters, e-mail volume on related projects is down 75%; meeting times have been cut in half.
Consider implementing a wiki if: – You want to establish a company intranet quickly and cheaply without sacrificing functionality, security, or durability. – You want to publish a range of corporate documents in one universally accessible location and let employees manage those documents with a minimum of effort, lag, and risk of redundancy. – You want to manage and organize meeting notes, team agendas, and company calendars. – You need a project management tool that is cheap (if not free), extensible, and accessible through any Web browser. – You need a central location where shared documents can be viewed and revised by a large and/or dispersed team.
10
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
•
03/30/2006
213
Wikis Vs. Traditional Content Wikis are Management Software – – – –
Cheap Extensible Easy to implement Don't require a massive software rollout
• Wikis are Web-based – They present little or no learning curve in the adoption cycle – They allow the user to determine the relevancy of content
• A major benefit of many wikis is their ability to organize themselves organically. In other words, users can create their own site structure, or ontology, rather than have it imposed on them by the developers of content management software. • Wikis have an inherently collaborative nature, as opposed to the workflow structure of content management software • A traditional project management tool simply cannot reproduce the environment of collaboration and involvement that wikis create.
Success Stories 1. Eastman Kodak Co.: Ofoto 2. Nokia 3. Yahoo 4. Disney
11
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
214
Success Stories • Eastman Kodak Co.'s online photo unit, Ofoto • Adam Hertz, vice-president for technology strategy, – is mulling their potential outside corporate walls: Shutterbugs could use them to let relatives and friends contribute stories about photos in their collections.
Success Stories (continued) • Nokia (Socialtext) to facilitate information exchange within its Insight & Foresight group. • Yahoo (Twiki) software to help its development team overcome the problems associated with working from a variety of separate locations.
12
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
Appendix 2
03/30/2006
215
Success Stories (continued) • Disney – Used as a "development" wiki for an engineering team that was rearchitecting the Go.com portal – Used at an R&D-ish group building new technology for Disney's Internet Group.
Why are we here? • • • •
To help me. To avoid the final test. To help with research in the field. All of the above.
13
MGSC300 Wikis and Bohmian Dialogues
03/30/2006
Appendix 2
216
What does it mean to me? • Read and discuss the issues in the spirit of a Bohmian dialogue using the wiki. • Both classes (T-TH & F) are combined. • You will be anonymous. • You will only be graded on making a contribution not on the contribution. • Be yourself. • Have fun.
Next steps • Read and sign the Informed Consent Form • Participate in the dialogue (wiki) • You must show for the final at which time I will have a survey for you. • Thank you for your kind consideration.
14
Appendix 3
217
Informed Consent Form for Use of a WikiWikiWeb as a Group Collaboration Tool: An Ethnographic Study You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted by John Stager in the School of Information Science, Claremont Graduate University (CGU). You are being asked because you are a student in MGSC300 at Chapman University. The purpose of this study is to understand the use of a wiki in education and as a PURPOSE: collaboration tool. You will be asked to complete a survey along with your entries on the wiki. We PARTICIPATION: expect your participation to take about 10 to 15 minutes of your time for the survey and less than one hour per week over four weeks for the wiki. RISKS & BENEFITS: The potential risks associated with this study are none. We expect the project to benefit you by your contribution to adding knowledge in your discipline. In addition, we expect this research to benefit society and/or science. The foremost benefit from this research to the participants, since all are students, along with the benefit to society and the discipline of Information Science, is the furthering of understanding of how technology can facilitate group collaboration. Additionally, there is a benefit in understanding the societal aspects of collaboration and how the use of technology can affect, both positively and negatively, motivation and results at the group and individual level. One potential benefit is the understanding of how the WikiWikiWeb performs as a Knowledge Management repository. COMPENSATION:
You will receive nothing as compensation for your participation
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Please understand that participation is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will in no way affect your current or future relationship with CGU and/or Chapman University or its faculty, students, or staff [and your institution]. You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason, without penalty. CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be maintained in all publications or presentations resulting form this study. Any comments or examples will be unattributed or reported through the use of a pseudonym in reporting results. The identification of any individual or group appearing in a report or publication will remain solely in the records of the researcher. If you have any questions or would like additional information about this research, please contact me at
[email protected]. You can also contact my research collaborator/advisor at
[email protected]. The CGU Institutional Review Board, which is administered through the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP), has approved this project. You may also contact ORSP at (909) 607-9406 with any questions. A signed copy of this consent form will be given to you, if requested. I understand the above information and have had all of my questions about participation on this research project answered. I voluntarily consent to participate in this research. Signature of Participant ________________________________
Date ____________________
Printed Name of Participant _____________________________ Signature of Researcher ________________________________
Date ____________________
Appendix 4
218
Survey on MGSC300 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Somewhat disagree 4 – Neither agree nor disagree 5 – Somewhat agree 6 – Agree 7 – Strongly agree 1. The textbook was a good choice for this class. 2. I learned the most from the textbook. 3. I learned the most from the lectures. 4. The wiki was a good tool for this class. 5. I learned the most from the wiki. 6. The text book was not useful. 7. A wiki is a useful tool. 8. I gave my honest opinions on the wiki. 9. The use of the wiki was a good addition to the text and lectures. 10. I wish more time was spent on the wiki. 11. The wiki should be used for tests and quizzes. 12. The lectures should be on the wiki. 13. The least useful part of this class was the wiki. 14. The wiki should be used for other classes. 15. The wiki is useful as a dialogue tool for discussing issues. 16. I learned from the wiki entries from the other participants. 17. I understand the range of thoughts on the issues presented in the wiki. 18. I felt like I could not give my true thoughts on the wiki. 19. Other participants in the wiki gave their honest opinions on the wiki. 20. The use of the wiki in this class was a waste of my time.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. I spent an average of _____ hours per week on the wiki for this class. 22. What program are you in? ___________________ 23. Gender _______M
_______F
24. Year in school F_____ S_____ Jr_____ Sr_____ 25. Any comments? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Appendix 7
221 A01
ai 1
An acronym for the term Artificial Intelligence.
2 3 4
Artificial Intelligence is a term referring to intelligence shown in computer programs. Along with the level of sophistication in technology improving every day, the level of AI improves as well.
5 6
1
Appendix 7
222 A02
another_planet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Technology is obviously our gateway to the future. But how far into the future are we making plans for? I remember in elementary school they had a chapter in our science book about the planets and there was always that suggestion about us living on another planet someday. Somehow I think that was sort of like passing the baton from one generation to the next about where humanity is headed. Now it seems like another crazy idea when we talk about using up the earth and having to relocate before it's too late. So I was wondering what is Nasa up to these days. Well they're doing reconessaince on Mars of course and checking to see if there's potential for life and whether there has ever been life there before. What do you think we're looking for out there and do you think it's worth having a multi-billion dollar space program? Here's what they're telling the kids http://imaginemars.jpl.nasa.gov/index3.html
1
Appendix 7
223 A03
apple 1 2 3 4 5 6
Apple Computer is the developer and designer of the Macintosh (Mac) computer, Powerbook (laptop), and iPod (mp3 player). Founded by Steve Jobs, Apple computer has had a unique affect on the computer world. Valuing style and easy of use in their computers has led the company down a rollercoaster of high points and low points for the company.
7 8
this one took me a while because i got distracted on Apple's website trying to figure out if I could afford a Mac right now....
9 10
http://www.apple.com/
11
1
Appendix 7
224 A04
attendance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Speaking of Attendence... It is no longer necessary to be in attendence when one can complete tasks via wireless internet without ever leaving the spot in which you stand. However, if the need to move my body does arise, which it often does, I know that without IR i would be lost, and i mean that in the metaphoric as well as literal sense. I need Yahoo!Maps at least every other day to navigate my car ... as well as my life. Without the IR... I, as well as many others in this world, would not be as efficient (or lazy) as I am today. I can manage to be lazy and still get things done. oh the irony. I could respond to email, sending projects, powerpoints, essays, and all kinds of other correspondence to professors, students, family, and friends simultaneously as i navigate www.ebaumsworld.com. it doesnt get much better than that
1
Appendix 7
225 B01
biblical_numbers 1
Important Biblical Numbers
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
666 = number of the beast 665 = older brother of the beast 660 = approximate number of the beast 66600 = zip code of the beast 1/666 = common denominator of the beast 665.95 = retail price of the beast 660 = Approximate number of the Beast COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL DCLXVI = Roman numeral of the Beast 666.0000 = Number of the High Precision Beast 0.666 = Number of the Millibeast / 666 = Beast Common Denominator (-666) ^ (1/2) = Imaginary number of the Beast 6.66 e3 = Floating point Beast 1010011010 = Binary of the Beast 6, uh . . . what was that number again? = Number of the Blonde Beast COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 1-666 = Area code of the Beast 00666 = Zip code of the Beast 666mph = The speed limit of the Beast http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/m666.html $665.95 =See Retail price of the Beast $699.25 = Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax $769.95 = Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul $656.66 = Walmart price of the Beast $646.66 = Next week's Walmart priceMATERIAL of the Beast COPYRIGHTED Phillips 666 = Gasoline of the Beast Route 666 = Way of the Beast 666 F = Oven temperature for roast Beast 666k = Retirement plan of the Beast 666 mg = Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of Beast 6.66 % = 5 year CD interest rate at First Beast of Hell National Bank, $666 minimum deposit. $666/hr = Beast's lawyer's billing rate COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL Lotus 6-6-6 = Spreadsheet of the Beast Word 6.66 = Word Processor of the Beast i66686 = CPU of the Beast 665.9997856 = The Number of the Beast on a Pentium 666i = BMW of the Beast DSM-666 (revised) = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast 1232 Octal, Apt. 29A = Beast's hexed address
1
Appendix 7
226 B01
biblical_numbers 41 42
668 = Next-door neighbor of the Beast COPYRIGHTED 333 = The semi-Christ MATERIAL
43
...from The Straight Dope
2
Appendix 7
227 B02
big_brother 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Remember the movie 1984? I do. It was about a government that controlled everything you did. Every where you went you were watched. You go home and you were still watched. Everybody dressed the same, and books were considered contraband. Go ahead and use this page to describe how this would feel and discuss anything that you feel would add to this idea of a society consumed with surveillance and the loss of privacy in your own home. What technologies create this?
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Isn't it crazy that a book written in 1949 could give a possible description of our future that we have reason to fear now, in 2006? Even after so many people have read the book and seen the movie and seen how much of a nightmare it could be, we are still making technological advances that lead us in that same direction. I feel like RFIDs are just one step closer to this future. Yes, they seem harmless right now, but everything we do to make ourselves more classified and less of individuals is just another step in that direction. And the more we put it out there, the more we risk that some higher power will someday use it against us. It's easy to say that what we are doing now is good, and we will draw the line further down the road, when what we are doing becomes more ethically questionable. But will we ever be able to draw the line? I don't think so. And it scares me to think that someday someone might be able to know exactly where I am and what I am doing at any given moment. hey....take a look at this: Colombian President suggests implanting migrant workers coming to the U.S. so they can be tracked.
25
1
Appendix 7
228 B03
bourne_identity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bourne Identity was an action packed, suspenseful movie. It starred Matt Damon (A major hotty) as Jason Bourne, an elite government agent. He is lethally trained and built to disappear by the government. But, when one mission goes very wrong, it forces the government's top operative, Jason Bourne, to become its’ number one target.
7 8 9
This was the best movie and its sequel was just as good. Matt Damon was the perfect actor for this movie. I love movies that are mind boggling and always leaving you in suspense.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
This movie reminded me of the computer chip because the very first scene was a fisherman who had found Jason Bourne floating in the ocean. Bourne was unconscious. The fisherman saw a scar on his back with a bump. So, he cut it open and took out this metal, pill shaped object. Inspecting it with a magnifying glass, he turned on a red laser light. Flashing it to the wall, showed that it had Bourne's identity number and where he was posted. The government had put this in him as a tracking device.
18
1
Appendix 7
229 C01
Carse 1 2
Carse, James P. (1986). Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. New York: Ballantine Books.
3
1
Appendix 7
230 C02
communications_matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Myspace.com is definitely a communications matrix in the broadest sense of the word, making many things possible - good and or bad. However, if not myspace, then FACEBOOK, FRIENDSTER, CAMPUSSTEW, LIVEJOURNAL, XANGA, etc etc. Myspace is not an original idea, there are other sites that attempt to emulate it or serve similar functions. If myspace was abolished then something else would pop up to serve the apparent demand for people to socialize/connect on the internet in some kind of network/social/creepy context.
9
1
Appendix 7
231 D01
david
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See
http://sfstory.free.fr/images/AI/08.jpg
1 2 3 4 5
See. . .Look at all that emotion
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See
http://www.comeawayohumanchild.n et/AIcaptions/AI_captions07_files/im age009.png or < or % in page names.
14
1
Appendix 7
234
D03 defraud_a_biometrics-only_system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Defrauding a Biometrics System Even the most uncreative people could figure out a way to defraud a biometrics system (and many of them have). The biggest determinant is how much a person has to gain by doing so. In a previous post, someone mentioned the absurdity of cutting off a finger to use on a scanner. Consider for a moment, however, cutting your own finger off. If someone is emboldened enough, what would prevent them from running around town buying as much as they could (say, $30,000 worth of "stuff" or cash-advances or whatever). After going on a huge spending spree, this guy goes home, cuts his own finger off and claims he was assaulted. (Or maybe he cuts his own finger off, goes to the hospital, files a police report and then uses it to buy stuff for himself). In either case, is it reasonable to expect an insurance or credit company to hold him accountable for the debt? While this may seem like an outlandish scheme, many people have been caught (and many more haven't been caught) doing the same thing in order to receive insurance settlements. A quick Google search will find endless stories of "accidents" in which millions of dollars have been spent by insurance companies paying for lost limbs and fingers, and only some of them get caught. Stick your hand into the lathe, collect $100,000. Thank you for playing. With a fully-implemented biometrics system, the opportunities for fraud are endless (and, depending on the creativity of the fraudster, nearly undetectable).
32
1
Appendix 7
235 D04
demolition_man 1 2
Truly one of the best films of all time. This is not difficult to imagine as it has the greatest actor of all time, Sylvester Stallone.
3
1
Appendix 7
236 D05
different_levels_of_intelligence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Different Levels of Intelligence Is a human intelligent? Absolutely. Is a cat intelligent? Absolutely. Does a cat have human intelligence? Absolutely not. Building a computer that can "think" does not mean building a system that thinks like a human. Imagine a computer that was built with the intelligence of a cat. The system would know when it's hungry & start looking for food. When it saw a mouse it would try to corner it and chase it around. When it saw a dog, it would run away or climb a tree. When it's claws became dull, it would sharpen them on the furniture. While all of these behaviors are simple stimulus-response behaviors (a basic ifthen statement for a computer), these things could be programmed. It would require A LOT of programming, but it could be done - after all, neurons fire electrical signals interpreted by your brain, right? See the Self-Reconstructing Chair for an example of the beginnings of a rudimentary "intelligence". The adaptivity of the system is also a function of stimulus-response. How do cats learn they like a particular type of food, or another animal? Some sort of "pleasure" response is generated in the brain that is stored for later use. When the stimulus is experienced later, the stored stimulus replays the response & behaves in a similar way as the last time the experience took place. How the initial pleasure response is originally generated depends on thousands (if not millions) of other environmental factors taking place at the same time. The level of intelligence we'd endeavor to reach in an artificial system is important. As mentioned above, the more complex the intelligence, the more complex the programming becomes. I think a basic "intelligence" or self-awareness will become possible during my lifetime (asuming I don't get hit by a bus this afternoon, that is), perhaps beginning with a less-than human intelligence, like a rodent, cat or dog.
1
Appendix 7
237 D06
do_i_make_this_outfit_look_bad 1 2 3
Alot of the times the outfit just looks better on someone else. But I suppose that this would be a bad answer too.
1
Appendix 7
238
D07 does_chapman_university_use_technology_successfully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Does Chapman University's Use of Technology Help Your Education?
23 24 25 26 27 28
One of my former instructors once mentioned to me that he was trying to talk the "higher-ups" in the university to mandating a class to ensure basic usage of MS Office (including some intermediate-level MS Excel). Although he was turned down, I really believe that raising the technology bar for Chapman students would really add a tremendous value to the students' learning and future job prospects.
29 30 31 32 33 34
We are brought into Chapman with the promise of a technologicallybased learning experience, and - for the most part - we get just that. However, I really don't think the importance of technological tools is driven into the students the way it should be (with the exception of our MIS class - the only required technology-specific class in our undergraduate program).
35 36 37 38 39 40
The use of technology - like a hammer, a telephone, or a pen - is not an end, but a means to an end. It's a tool that can really separate the wheat from the chaff, and I think this should be given a higher priority at Chapman. While the PowerPoint slides our instructors use (and the wireless network on campus) are great at keeping a classroom tempo moving, I don't feel it's enough.
41 42
If I were king for a day, I'd definitely incorporate (at least) one required "end-user" technology course (MSOFFICE-101), as well as a
As anyone who is in Professor Stager's Friday class knows, Chapman University really uses their technical implementation as a "selling point" to prospective students and their parents. (for those not in the Friday class, there are tour groups that come in every Friday and talk about how high-tech Chapman is, and how that produces the highest quality students, etc. etc.) Based on your current and past semester(s) at Chapman... 1. Is technology successfully used in helping you learn? 2. Does the expectation of a certain level of technical competence make learning more difficult? 3. Do you feel you're ready to go out "into the world" with your current level of technical understanding? 4. What would you do differently if you were "king for a day" at Chapman? What (if anything) would you change?
1
Appendix 7
239
D07 does_chapman_university_use_technology_successfully 43 44 45 46 47
few higher-end electives, like Excel Function creation or basic Access databases. While most people think this is just for programmers, I can't even count the number of times a 10-minute Excel macro saved me hours of work.
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
The only technology that I have come into contact with this semester is that introduced in our MGSC 300 course, I do have to take another course having to do with information systems for my major later. I really do not feel like I am ready for the business world. If I were king for a day I would set up some basic programing course and possibley some other courses emphasizing the use of Microsoft office.....I agree with the comments above and don't have any other ideas.....maybe a graphics course or basic digital editing for business majors. Good question though. Thanks for the idea!
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
* Technology was definetly a big deal when I was coming in as a freshmen, but then its like after they sell you on the subject, they no longer have to provide you with everything that was promised. I participated in the program where I recieved a dell computer from the school. I remember after thatt being told that there would be special notebook sections of classes where everyone would bring thier laptops to class and would be all high tech. My FFC class was technically that section, however we did little more than bring in our computers for powerpoint presentations and did one inclass essay on our laptops. I believe that my ENG 103 class was also a laptop section, however all that meant was that students could bring thier laptops to class to take notes on if they wanted. I am guessing that these laptop section of classes have simply died out, because I never heard anything about them after my first semester. I came in as a transfer student and I missed the sales pitch on the high tech uses at Chapman University....to tell you the truth I saw more high tech at the JC I went to, I really don't see anything that makes the campus seem like it should be promoting this idea to incoming students....when I heard that this was one of the sales pitches used to draw students in I was really surprised. Maybe having wireless internet on campus falls under this category (but alot of the campuses I looked at all had that too).....so the University should not use that when they give the campus tours....I have seen those poor
2
Appendix 7
240
D07 does_chapman_university_use_technology_successfully 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
students being draged around campus by the tour guide feeding them that same line about how the classes are set up with "special" settings like paint to make the mood in the class a learning environment.....for me, when the lights go out and the screens come down I feel like I am here to watch a movie or take a nap....the only thing that keeps me from zoning out is the few instructors who auctually keep me focused....."Stager is one of them"....the others leave me feeling like I slept right through my class with my eyes wide open! If I were king for a day I would round up some crazy techies and let them go wild on the campus....do some brainstorming to come up with some ideas and start emplementing them ASAP before the high school down the street starts passing Chapman up on their "High Tech" campus concept.....and we University students have to walk to the High School to get a feel for the real world.
3
Appendix 7
241
D08 does_this_outfit_make_me_look_fat 1 2 3 4
Does this outfit make me look fat?
5 6
This is great page! If I say yes I am an ass......If I say no I am a liar. Should the question be: Do I make this outfit look bad?
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
From what experience I have with dealing with women, guys normally don't ask these types of questions, there is no way for a guy to give an answer that would satisfy the girl. First off, if you say no, the girl will will immediately give you the death look and say something like "I can't believe you just said that." It doesn't matter if you were joking, it seems that women don't take too kindly to jokes of this nature. If you say she looks great, and even if you are being honest, she'll say that you just said that to make her feel better or that you want something from her. Neither of these cases has to be true for men to that she looks good. It just seems that women are so insecure with themselves that when they ask if they look bad, they really don't want an answer. My best advice would be to completely ignore the question and try to move on to another topic. Most times, its not too hard to disctract women into talking about something other than what they wanted too. The best bet is to not answer, because you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
If a girl ever asks you this, just say, "no, you look good, but i really wanted you to wear...(what ever your favorite outfit is)." Or better yet take her shopping! Guys don't ask these type of questions because they generally don't care what their girlfriends think of them even though they should. If guys did ask us they would dress a lot better and we wouldn't be embarassed but them. And, we wouldn't have to explain to our friends what a great personality he has and how funny he is, etc.
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Okay I just laughed so hard about that last comment (ie explaning about his "personality"). Well we all know that most guys, except for some who call themselves "metrosexual," have some problems with stlye but it is because they really do not care about what other people are thinking about their outfits. They aren't wired like that, otherwise they would have vaginas. If a guy were ever to ask me if he looked fat in his outfit, or even better if his butt looked good in his jeans, I would die laughing and joke with him about when his next period was. Honestly though, when a girl asks you if she looks good in her outfit or
As any man knows, there is no way to answer this question correctly.
1
Appendix 7
242
D08 does_this_outfit_make_me_look_fat 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
is she looks fat she wants you to tell her she looks amazing... do you really think we would put on an outfit that we thought made us look fat in the first place?? Also, if she really doesn't look good you can find ways around the question other than ignoring it by suggesting something else to wear or saying something like "You look beautiful no matter what but its not the most flattering shirt etc..." If you can't be honest with her without fear of her becoming bitch of the century then why are you dating her?? Yes, girls are a lot more sensitive than guys so just dont be too blunt about it and be like "yeah you fat cow go to the gym more and maybe youll be able to fit into it better." but whatever you do... dont avoid the question- thats almost worse than you telling us we look fat... because we will try to figure out what you're thinking and trust me we will think the worse.
53
2
Appendix 7
243 E01
enterprise
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
1 2
1
Appendix 7
244 F01
folding_paper 1 2 3 4
~~ It is a scientific fact that you can only fold an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper 7 times before you can no longer fold it in half again physically. At this point, you cannot make a piece of paper any smaller...
5 6 7 8 9 10
Does technology follow this pattern? Is there a finite limit to what we can achieve in size and function? At what point is small considered "too" small? What are the applications and possiblities of "micro" and "nano" technologies and what are the limitations - especially relating to computers and communications? ~
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Hey, I saw an article about how IMB is working on plans to handle that exact problem. Well IMB isn't exactly handling the problem itself but the company along with other chipmakers are working on trying to extend the life of current technology in order to save on the cost of switching to something new. So far they are developing techniques for shrinking circuitry to increase processing power so more information can be stored onto chips and inserted into smaller devices. I expect current methods have a limited life, the article predicts as little as 7 more years before alternative methods need to be used. There may be a scare involved saying we're going to reach a standstill but that's doubtable because they're already testing new ways of storing information for example using light, silicon, and even water to create more highly focused laser beams and increase precision. I don't think technology has limits, I think the earth has limits. Eventually our resources will be depleted and then technology wont have the raw material needed to continue. Unless we find a way to make technology support the earth, progress may be hindered for that reason rather than the folding paper analogy. Still I wouldn't be too skeptical since it appears that scientists are already using and testing technology to find ways to extend the life of the earth and therefore extend the life of technology.
35
1
Appendix 7
245 F01
folding_paper 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
I think there is a point at which technology will get too small. For example... the ipod nano SO TINY, at first its like "o how cool its so small!" but honestly i think it is "harder" (in terms of the click wheel and seeing the screen) to use. Cell phones have also gotten insanely small.. while I am glad that we are not using the giant grey blocks from the 80's how much smaller can they get? I think tech people need to start working on adding things to existing technology not making things smaller and more compact because i already have a hard enough time trying to find my cell phone in my purse!
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
I'm not sure we the intelligence to know the answer to this. Look back 100 years and it would be hard to believe what has evolved in technology. In the movies I've seen some incredible 3-d computers and a wireless society with major health breakthroughs such as limb replacement. If history is any indication then nearly anything is possible. In a capitalist society people are rewarded for the development of new technology so this should result in the future development of many interesting products that could help mankind.
55
2
Appendix 7
246 F02
fps 1 2
FPS is an
acronym for First Person Shooter. Generally, this term is only used in the video game
industry.
3 4 5
Not to be confused with the governments highly confidential project: the Federal Punching Service. They are a branch of the Internal Revenue Service that punishes those who do not pay their taxes.
6
1
Appendix 7
247 F03
free_of_charge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
I believe that the main reason that the Free Software movement is more or less referred to as the Open Source movement now is the confusion of whether you have to pay for that software. There are free programs out there, and there are programs that you have to pay for. Mostly with Open Source, they are free. Programs like Irfanview and Samurize were written just to be written, not to make a profit. However, lot's of different companies sell many different versions of a Operating System called Linux, which is the largest proponent of the Open Source movement. When you buy an Open Source program, you are getting more than just the program. The creator is allowing you to change whatever you want about the program, and also giving the ability to either redistribute for free or to sell. Now it isn't that cut and dry, but that is essentially the gist of it.
1
Appendix 7
248 F04
free_to_change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Open source software makes me think of this wiki that we are all contributing to, as well as other wikis like wikipedia. We are able to change the writings of these pages and then they are redistributed over the web for others to view and others still have to opportunity to change the pages yet again. The open source movement seems to be a great idea. With people having the source code they can manipulate the software to their needs and redistribute the software to others that might need the software for similar needs but they might not know how to alter the software. It would seem that the open source software would enable many different types of software to circulate that would enable people to have multiple uses of software that might not have been otherwise available. Additionally, with the source code available the people that make a contribution are able to be more creative. Having to open source does not mean that they can’t charge for the source code, it just means that it is available. So it does not make sense why people would be resistant, they are still able to make money off the product. It would seem that it is capitalism at its best. If a guy makes an alteration he can charge for his time spent on the project and can make money off his contribution. I mean its like have the blueprints to making an engine and saying that you are not going to share it with anyone else because you want everyone to come to you. However, if the plans where sold, you would make money and the “engine” would be improved upon; everyone would be able to make money. The competition would increase competition and people would go to where the product is best. And not everyone can read code or alter it, just as not everyone can create an engine that will run. So it is not like everyone will be writing and altering code and take the money away from everyone. Only the few people that have the time and want to do so will, and they will more than likely make a contribution that is meaningful that they will be able to make money off of, as will the initial writers.
1
Appendix 7
249 G01
gattica 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Gattica is a very good analogy, and it reminded me of the movie as well. The technology there was amazing in theory, I’m not sure if any of that is possible yet though. But anyhow, the idea seems like it can have its benefits. Fraud seems to be reduced slightly because it is hard to duplicate a fingerprint and furthermore no one has the same fingerprint. However, I was recently discovered that as you get older your fingerprints start to wear down and often become very difficult to read. This could become a problem for older generations or younger generations as they get older. If the finger print is the form of ID and the fingerprint cannot be read then that individual could be screwed out of all their assets that are secured by such a screening. I personally do not like the idea of having my fingerprint as my ID, I much prefer carrying around plastic. Furthermore, based on other guys that I know, they would not be able to access many of their accounts. Car accidents, burning there fingers from matches and smoking, calluses from wood working, all of which can happen and reduce if not eliminate access to their accounts.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
In regard to Gattica, just because Ethan Hawke was able to create a fake fingerprint does not mean that people would really be able to do the same... (YES, IT DOES!!)it is a movie after all. But the comments above about burnt fingers, callouses, and the wearing down of finger prints over time are valid. How will we be able to prove that we are who we say we are in such cases?? I think that using fingerprints for a payment option could be effective, but if this in turn leads to trying to use fingerprints as the sole source of identification, we could be faced with a problem.
23
1
Appendix 7
250 G02
good_luck_on_finals 1 2
Hi Everyone! I just wanted to say have a great summer and good luck on finals!
3 4
I was just curious...what is everyone's hardest final going to be next week?
5
Also what was your best or worst class this semester?
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
I am embarassed to say Marketing.....for some reason this class has been the worst. Not that the material is hard...it just doe not interest me and I feel like I am force feeding my brain....its like my body is present, but my mind is somewhere else.....or maybe it is just the instructor...The classes I thought I would have a hard time with turned out to be cake and the class I thought for sure would be cake turned out to be S#!T...My best class had to be one of my lower division courses I was taking at a junior college, I forgot just how little I really had to do to get an A. I could cram for an exam and still walk out feeling like I aced it......here at Chapman, every exam I have taken felt like I bombed it even when I knew the matrial....and later found out I aced it or barely passed.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
My hardest final... Hmmm I really dont have any serious finals at all this semester! Umm Talk about lucking out, i had a bowling final last week (consisted of 26 basic questions such as 'T/F.. you can wear street shoes while bowling'), which i'd say was the easiest. my hardest final... probably my science 100 final, which wont be hard either because i Pass/No Pass'd the class. My best class was my marketing class, contrary to the former entry, I enjoyed my class and learned so much about how it works and I think i may add it as a 2nd business emphasis. I liked prof Dellande very much and am considering taking a more advanced class in the future. My worst class was by far my History of VietNam Wars class. I originally was totally pumped to take it because I am Vietnamese and figured hey i should know something about my people and heritage and all of that, but the prof was totally boring, unable to connect w/his students, had no rapport w/us, and i just ended up dropping the class after the midterm because I did so poorly. But overall i had a great semester.
31 32 33 34
my hardest final was volleyball, it was hard cause i was unable to take it :( i forgot that i didn't audit the class, so thinkin i audited the class i would nt go to class. so on the day we were suppose to take the final, my teacher said i failed cause i missed too much class so i couldn't take the final..therfore, it was my hardest final..boo! good luck to all
35 36 37 38 39 40
Bummer...I'm really sorry to hear about the volleyball thing. Good luck with the rest of your finals! My hardest final is definitely going to be politics. Ugh, maybe I should have been working harder throughout the rest of the semester, but it happens and within the next few days it will all be in the past. Have an awesome summer all!
1
Appendix 7
251 G03
gps 1 2 3
GPS is "an acronym for Global Positioning System. A network of satellites which provide extremely accurate position and time information. Useful in remote locations or for moving platforms."1
4 5 6 7 8
the GPS is operated by the Department of Defense and has made units small enough to fit into wristwatches. Also recent developments have made it possible to implant GPS units under the skin of human beings. The proposed purpse of this is to prevent child abduction and assist in locating people with Alzheimer’s Disease.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Defination taken from http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=g
17
1
Appendix 7
252 G04
group_h 1
(This is a page for Team H to communicate.)
2
Real World Case 3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Ian Gilmore Daniel Krikorian??? Jennifer Manship Timothy Muraviov Taylor Smith •Description of Case: ... •Case Questions: 1. What is the current and future business value of robotics? 2. Would you be comfortable with a robot performing surgery on you? Why or why not? 3. The robotics being used by Ford Motor Co. are contributing to a streamlining of their supply chain. What other applications of robots can you envision to improve supply chain management beyond those described in the case? •Update on Case ... •References ...
1
Appendix 7
253 H01
hacking 1
urbandictionary.com sums it up best
2
1. hacking
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Hacking is the gaining of access(wanted or unwanted) to a computer and viewing, copying, or creating data(leaving a trace) without the intention of destroying data or maliciously harming the computer.
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Subject A : A hacker killed my computer! All my reports are gone and it's due tomarrow!
This represents the Good Guys most of the time for they are the ones who search for these exploits to prevent crackers use a method called cracking(opposite of hacking). Hacking and hackers are commonly mistaken to be the bad guys most of the time. Crackers are the ones who screw things over as far as creating virus, cracks, spyware, and destroying data. References: Cracker - Person who gains unauthorized access to a computer with the intention of causing damage. Cracking - Method by which a person who gains unauthorized access to a computer with the intention of causing damage. Hacker - Person who gains authorized/unauthorized access to a computer WITHOUT the intention of causing damage. Spyware - A Program that was created by a person(most frequently a cracker) to watch the computer and it's actions and report the details to the origional maker. Virus - A maliciously made program that is used to destroy data, or hurt the performance of the computer. Makes copies of itself and sends it to more people.
Subject B : Dude, if you lost all your data, that's probably a cracker that broke into your comp. Subject A : I'm white you numbskull.
1
Appendix 7
254 H01
hacking 41 42 43 44
Subject B : No, a cracker destroys your data. A hacker looks at your data.
45
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hacking
Subject A : Does it look like I care?
46 47
well, at least i didnt put the defination of a dirty sanchez up there.
48
2
Appendix 7
255 H02
halo 1 2 3 4
Halo is an immensly popular FPS game published by Microsoft. The video game Halo was developed by bungie studios in 1999, the game was a huge success, without Halo, Microsofts XBOX? may have never been able to make a profit.
5 6
http://www.bungie.net/
7
http://www.microsoft.com/
8
1
Appendix 7
256 H03
hans_moravec 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hans Moravec is the Director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at Carnegie-Mellon University's Robotic Institute. His comments are from "The Universal Robot," Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993).
1
Appendix 7
257 H04
homelessness
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See http://www.epath.org/blog/uploaded_images/Homeless Man-750820.jpg
1
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2005-85-skidrow.jpg 2 3
5
How about something like this hanging out in Second Life?
6
Now that is reality.
4
7 8
1
Appendix 7
258 H05
horror_story 1 2 3 4
I know that there are some other horror stories out there....go ahead and use this page to get them out if they seem to burden your daily life. Or maybe they might be to hilarious to hold in anymore.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
My sister goes to high school locally, and there has been a lot of controversy with myspace at her school. There was a teacher who would often peruse myspace and saw some students commenting to each other about an upcoming party they were going to have. The teacher then felt that as an ethical person she must warn the students involved and inform their parents about the students' party plans. This caused a lot of tension in the school. As a result, a majority of my sister's friends changed their age on the website to say they are 14 years old because myspace requires that web pages of people that young must be private, made viewable to friends only. Doing this did not solve any problems, but at least it prevented the teacher from getting involved again.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Also, about a year ago there was another incident where students were venting about school and their teachers on the livejournals. A member of the administration somehow found out about this and turned it into a very serious matter, claiming that students were issuing death threats to teachers and administration. It was ridiculousa blog on myspace or a livejournal is a place for people to vent whatever emotions they might be feeling- it is unbelievable that an administrator took these comments seriously and acted on them, when really students were just complaining about school as they always have and always will.
29
1
Appendix 7
259 H06
human_evolution 1
Human Evolution, Thanks to the Information Revolution
2 3
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See http://www.geocities.com/mistressr ulez/evolution.jpg
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
is this a joke? are we actually attributing the evolution of human beings to the information revolution? i find that somewhat offensive...suggesting that we are aimed toward complete focus on a machine, or even an information superhighway. I dont think this image is suggesting that man's evolutionary focus is towards machinery, but rather it suggests that throughtout the evolution of man, tools in aiding man have come into play, thus the image of the computer. suggesting that we would evolve from monkeys to humans to computer nerds...is somewhat comical. i do think that technology and the information revolution has created many opportunities and allowed people to do everything faster, but are we as a race growing toward information, and technology...or just becoming more glued to the computer?
20 21 22 23
As far as being glues to a computer, well let's hope that mankind has the ability to do otherwise. Information and technology are mean to aid us in bringing the world into easier access, not for us to become solely dependent upon them.
1
Appendix 7
260 H07
humans 1
Human
2 3 4
Defined by the Oxford American Edition Dictionary as: of or belonging to the genus Homo; man or woman or child of the species homosapiens; mortal
5
1
Appendix 7
261
I01 i_think_that_if_people_are_already_settled_into_their_urban_areas_t hey_will_not_move_out_to_the_rural_areas_just_because_that_oppor tunity_is_now_possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
History has shown that people will naturally move out move the urban areas and migrate to the suburban regions and even the rural areas. This is particularly true when people get older. They want to stay in the city when they are young, because they believe that is where the “good life” is, then they want to move to the suburban areas when they want to raise a family. When people become part of the elderly population they often want to move out to the desert, even farther away from the city. The information revolution just might hasten the process because people will still be in contact with whomever they need to talk to. Furthermore, there is no question about the information revolution aiding economic development. If you look at the 1960’s with the end of the Bracero Program in California, the tomato farmers completely mechanized the entire process which now allows for four times the output of tomatoes and decline in prices on tomatoes. Now the process of picking tomatoes is automated to improve the output for the growers. Similarly, look at the Dot-Com boom. The economy had a surge during the 90’s and the economy grew tremendously. Because of the era, tons of new companies have developed and have allowed the GDP to grow continuously. Without the information revolution companies like Amazon.com would not be here now (they may be here later on down the road but not as soon as they were). When it comes to education, look how many online universities are now available to the public, especially the single parents that might not have time to attend class on a regular basis. Even traditional universities utilize online aids such as blackboard. The information revolution has increased the academic possibilities and has provided conveniences that were not here before.
22 23 24 25 26 27
When you like at the medical arena, technology has made countless advances. The medical field is even trying to develop artificial hearts. Chips have been developed to monitor heart rates, blood flow, brain activity, the list goes on. The information revolution has also aided the medical field when aiding in body scans and brain scans. The information revolution has helped society in many different ways and will continue to benefit society.
28 29 30 31 32
As for Snider’s comments about the control, he seems to overlook history. Any time there are advances, it takes time for society to adjust and determine if regulations are needed, and then what types of regulations. The Information Revolution is still rather young compared to its potential. It is a given that society will continually have to assess the progress and determine what controls need to be put in place if any.
33
1
Appendix 7
262 I02
ians_page 1
1
Appendix 7
263 I03
imb 1
LOS ANGELES TIMES
2
FEBRUARY 2006
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
IBM Corp. scientists have developed a technique for printing circuitry on silicon that could make computer chips significantly more powerful while extending the life of current manufacturing technology, potentially saving billions of dollars in plant reconstruction. Most semiconductor manufacturing today uses a process called optical lithography, in which lasers imprint patterns on silicon wafers, much like silk screening, with features as small as 90 COPYRIGHTED nanometers in width. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.components shrink, more can be MATERIAL crammed onto each chip, enabling smaller devices that are increasingly powerful. Intel Corp., the world's largest chipmaker, introduced microprocessors on the 65-nanometer node late last year, but the majority of today's computer processors are still made at 90 nanometers.As
components shrink, more can be crammed onto each chip, enabling smaller devices that are increasingly powerful Many experts believe that using optical lithography and beaming lasers through water can concentrate the light to produce chips with features down to 32 nanometers, but no smaller. IBM's technique, a variation of so-called immersion lithography, is expected to be announced today at a technical conference in San Jose. It uses an oil-like organic fluid with a higher refractive index than water, resulting in highly focused laser beams that produce lines 29.9 nanometers apart — about 3,000 times as thin as a human COPYRIGHTED hair.
MATERIAL
"This technique could be quite an attractive option to make chips at 25 nanometers," Gian-Luca Bona, functional manager of science and technology at IBM's Almaden Research Center in San Jose, said in an interview. It could lead to processor and memory chips that are smaller, faster, cheaper and use less power, IBM says. By extending the use of optical lithography further into the future, chipmakers can delay switching manufacturing processes, which causes downtime and lost productivity, while buying time for other technologies to mature. IBM's process could allow optical lithography to be used through 2013. "This result is the strongest evidence to date that the industry may have at least seven years of breathing room before any radical changes in chip making techniques would be needed," said COPYRIGHTED Robert Allen, manager of lithography materials at IBM's Almaden lab.
MATERIAL
That should be welcome news to chipmakers, who want to avoid costly disruption, said Klaus Rinnen, head of the manufacturing group at tech market researcher Gartner Inc. and a specialist in lithography. "Whenever you can extend something in use for a long time, the industry will always look at this first," Rinnen said. The costs and risks associated with retooling chip factories, reeducating workers and productivity loss can be considerable, Rinnen added.
1
Appendix 7
264 I03
imb 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
It's not possible to quantify the cost savings IBM's new technique could achieve, but new chip factories, known as fabs, cost billions of dollars to build and equip, and retooling them for an entirely new manufacturing method would be extremely expensive. A senior Intel scientist called the IBM development interesting and worth further study but noted that it was one of several options for future chip manufacturing. "We've been experimenting with immersion lithography but decided that it's not ready this time," said Mark Bohr, Intel's director of process architecture and an Intel senior fellow. "Immersion technology is of interest to us and to the industry, but there are still a lot of issues about defect density, how fast you can control wafer production, etc."
COPYRIGHTED
Intel last week said it had succeededMATERIAL in producing prototype processors at the 45-nanometer level using dry lithography. The current roadmap at Intel, which produces more than 80% of the world's computer processors, foresees introducing a 32-nanometer chip in late 2009. The company is looking at several ways to manufacture chips at the 32-nanometer node, including immersion technology, extending dry lithography to that scale and using a radically different and as yet unproven technology known as extreme ultraviolet, or "soft X-rays." "It comes down to a question of what's most cost-effective. Is it immersion or dry?" Bohr said. "Right now, immersion tools are about twice as expensive."
2
Appendix 7
265 I04
industrial_revolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Industrial Revolution Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Western society was conducting business in the form of the “putting out system” in which people in rural areas conducted their work in their home and sent finished products to the city or urban areas. The products that were produced in this system were hand made, unique, and could be made personally for each customer. With the Industrial Revolution, the center of work was moved to the city around a factory. As a result, the family unit disintegrated. In the Information Revolution the center of work could once again return to the home and possibly rebuild families. Do you think this would be a good thing for society?
1
Appendix 7
266 I05
information_revolution 1
The Information Revolution
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
The Information Revolution is a phrase we use to refer to the dramatic changes taking place during the last half of the 20th century in which service jobs (ranging from high technology, highly skilled professions to low-skill jobs like short-order cook) are more common than jobs in manufacturing or agriculture. The product of skilled professionals is the information or knowledge they provide. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL The information revolution began with the invention of the integrated circuit or computer chip. Those chips have revolutionized our lives, running our appliances, providing calculators, computers, and other electronic devices to control our world. It is still early enough that no one knows precisely what all of the implications of the information revolution will be for social life. But clearly changes such as the information superhighway permitting people to communicate using computers all around the globe, fax machines, satellite dishes, and cellular phones are changing how families spend their time, the kind of MATERIAL work we do, and many other COPYRIGHTED aspects of our lives. Copyright © 1995, Idea Works, Inc.™
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL See http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/courses/TR501/images/I nfor%20rev.jpg
20 21
1
Appendix 7
267 I06
interesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
The idea is rather interesting. I personally cannot see paying for virtual property or any virtual interaction that these players actually experience, but then again I have never been much of a video game player myself. However, it is clear that there has always been a market for the video games and the virtual entertainment, and the market just continues to grow. When it comes to this second-life, the market continues to grow, and rather quickly at that. I do see the major possibilities for marketing. With the type of interaction that is in this game, actual companies could gain more coverage. I know myself a few people that rarely do go out and they do spend most of their lives in front of computers playing nothing but games. By using the advertisements the companies will be able to reach a market that they were missing in the past. However, I do not think that the marketing possibilities are solely beneficial to this game or games of this sort. In fact I feel that marketing products could be brought into all the games that manufacturers produce for resale. The companies in this case could contract with the manufacturers and that way they will be able to get money from both contracting with the manufacturer and from the possible sales increase. In this circumstance with second-life, manufacturers could easily purchase ad space or billboards in the virtual world for far less then what they would be purchasing in the real world. In addition, companies in real estate or finance could even take advantage of this by advertising loans or the company itself so the “gamers” know who to use say if they were to sell their home or buy a new home. And given that there is a possibility of earning a six figure salary from this, the finance could direct these “gamers” by showing them where to invest and up to date benefits for choosing one company over another.
1
Appendix 7
268 J01
james_h_snider 1 2 3 4
James H. Snider is a political scientist. His remarks are taken from "The Information Superhighway as Environmental Menace," The Futurist (March/April 1995).
1
Appendix 7
269 J02
john_r_searle 1 2 3 4
John R. Searle is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His comments are from "Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?" Scientific American (January 1990).
1
Appendix 7
270 J03
john_s_mayo 1 2 3 4 5 6
John S. Mayo is president emeritus of Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories, formally AT&T Bell Laboratories. His comments are taken from "Information Technology for Development: The National and Global Information Superhighway," Vital Speeches of the Day (February 1, 1995).
1
Appendix 7
271 K01
kidnapped 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Myspace.com has many members and there has been controversy over the child predators that are out there. I believe that it should remain open the way it is; however, accountability needs to be placed on some of these parents. These parents give access their children access to computers at such a young age and allow them to have free range on them. Parents even go as far as allowing their kids to have computers in their rooms without any supervision. I never had a computer in a room that my parents were not able to supervise until I was in my senior year of high school, and I didn’t have my own computer until I was in college. These predators are sick bastards that deserve nothing more than a knife to their hanging appendages. However, they will always be there. The parents need to take a stance and not allow there kids on this site or allow them on with supervision. I mean many of the younger children lie to pass the age requirement, that again is because a lack of control on the parent’s part. Parents need to have more accountability, and they still can have control without having their kids in a prison. I knew plenty of kids in high school, and friends of my younger siblings that are still in High school, whose parents are aware of what goes on in their children’s life and their kids do not feel that they are in a prison. And these little punks that say that their parents are invading their privacy need a little dose of reality. More often than not the parents are looking out for the benefit for the child, and the child only wants to look like a hot shot. I mean a kid like that is an idiot anyhow, I mean he/she only has to wait until they are 18 anyhow. People need to take responsibility rather than pointing fingers in every direction except at themselves.
27
1
Appendix 7
272 M01
magically 1
Magic
2 3
Defined by the Oxford American Edition Dictionary as: a supposed art of influencing the course of events supernaturally.
4 5 6 7 8
The use of magic has been a controversial issue throughout history. In the colonial United States in the 1600's many settlers feared the use of witchcraft so much that several people were killed because of their alledged use of magic. Much of this happened in Salem, Massachusetts and the events are commonly referred to as the Salem Witchhunts.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Despite the negative feelings many people still have toward idolatry and magic, many books and movies centered on magic have become quite popular and widely accepted. Among them are the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings books, which were made into movies and have generated millions of dollars in profits. Other books and movies include the Chronicles of Narnia, Hansel and Grettel, Wicked, Cinderella, Aladdin, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz.
16
1
Appendix 7
273 M02
manage_our_own_spending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
I like to keep my money in the bank so I don't spend more than I need to. When it's time to pay bills I transfer an allowance and enough for the bills to my checking. I write out the checks and when I'm done the checkbook is locked away. I spend my allowance with my ATM card simply because I'd rather use my statements to do my taxes instead of saving a bunch of receipts for paying cash. Whatever fees I incur are worth the convenience of not losing cash if I lose my wallet. I'm not saying my way is perfect but at least I know that I won't spend more than I should. I agree with what some people have said about taking your time. All this impulsive buying and hurrying doesn't give anyone a chance to think about what they're doing with their lives and their money. People just need to be in control of their spending habits. I recommend we put controls in our lives so we can stop and think about what were doing not just responding to cues from advertisers and retailers.
1
Appendix 7
274 M03
microsoft 1
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/goingbeyond/indexFlash.html
2 3 4 5
That explains it best, I feel that it is a bad idea to speak in a way contrary to what Mr. Gates wants us to know about his company. I value my thumbs.
6
1
Appendix 7
275 M04
msnbc_article 1 2 3
MSNBC.Com/Associated Press, "Americans Fleeing Nation's Big Cities." Accessed 21 April, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12395115
4 5 6 7 8
Report: Americans fleeing nation's big cities People moving further from metropolitan areas in search of cheaper homes
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
A new survey suggests Americans increasingly are leaving big cities COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL like New York in the search for See more affordable http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12395115 living. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060 420/060420_leavingcity_hmed_3a.hmedium.jpg Mario Tama / Getty Images file Did you know? • Today in history: April 22 Celebrity birthdays, highlights in history, plus more facts about this COPYRIGHTED day MATERIAL • Take MSNBC.com's weekly news quiz Related Stories | What's this? • Virginia sees gains while Americans flee large cities • Big Cities Losing People
1
Appendix 7
276 M04
msnbc_article • Fastest growing counties are suburban, rural Most Popular Most • Top • Most EViewed Rated mailed RSS FEEDS ON MSNBC.COM Add these headlines to your news reader • U.S. Life News • Learn more about RSS 16 17
Updated: 11:00 a.m. ET April 20, 2006
18 19
WASHINGTON - Americans are leaving the nation’s big cities in search of cheaper homes and open spaces farther out.
20 21 22 23
Nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004, with a few exceptions in the South and Southwest, according to a report being released Thursday by the Census Bureau.
24 25 26 27
Northeasterners are moving South and West. West Coast residents are moving inland. Midwesterners are chasing better job markets. And just about everywhere, people are escaping to the outer suburbs, also known as exurbs.
28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Story continues below ↓
35 36 37 38
The Census Bureau measured domestic migration — people moving within the United States — from 1990 to 2000, and from 2000 to 2004. The report provides the number of people moving into and out of each state and the 25 largest metropolitan areas.
advertisement “It’s a case of middle class flight, a flight for housing affordability,” said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “But it’s not just white middle class flight, it’s Hispanics and blacks, too.”
2
Appendix 7
277 M04
msnbc_article 39 40 41
The states that attracted the most new residents: Florida, Arizona and Nevada. The states that lost the most: New York, California and Illinois.
42 43 44 45 46
Among the 25 largest metropolitan areas, 18 had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — the three biggest metropolitan areas — lost the most residents to domestic moves. The New York metropolitan area had a net loss of more than 210,000 residents a year from 2000 to 2004.
47 48 49
Richard Florida, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, said smaller, wealthier households are replacing larger families in many big metropolitan areas.
50 51
That drives up housing prices even as the population shrinks, chasing away even more members of the middle class.
3
Appendix 7
278 M04
msnbc_article 52 53 54 55
“Because they are bidding up prices, they are forcing some people out to the exurbs and the fringe,” Florida said. “Other people are forced to make moves in response to that. I don’t have any sense of this abating.”
56 57 58 59 60
Riverside, Calif. a burgeoning city The metropolitan area that attracted the most new residents was Riverside, Calif., which has been siphoning residents from Los Angeles for years. The Riverside area, which includes San Bernardino and Ontario, had a net gain of 81,000 people a year from 2000 to 2004.
61 62 63 64
Riverside has grown to become the 13th largest metropolitan area in the nation. It’s a short drive to several mountain ranges, and it’s within driving distance of the beach. Locally, it is known as the Inland Empire.
65 66 67 68
“When you look at housing prices in Southern California, along the beaches and coastlines, you’re able to obtain a very large home for a much lower price” in Riverside, said Cindy Roth, president and CEO of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce.
69 70 71 72
Homes in Riverside aren’t cheap. The median price — the point at which half cost more and half cost less — was $374,200 in 2005. But they are less expensive than Los Angeles, where the median price was $529,000.
73 74 75 76
Other areas that attracted a lot of new residents also have relatively inexpensive homes, even if they are not the cheapest in the country. Phoenix, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth round out the top five metropolitan areas.
77 78 79
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
4
Appendix 7
279 M05
my_page 1
Hey look. . .It's my page
2
That it is! Now, do something wonderful with it.
3
1
Appendix 7
280
P01 procrastination_is_a_problem_i_have
2
who from chapman has a problem with procrastination?
3
and what is your best procrastination story?
1
4
1
Appendix 7
281 P02
prophecy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
What the Bible says about 666 is to beware because it is the mark of the beast. It warns that you will not be able to buy or sell or transact without it and it will be required of each person to have it implanted either on his or her forehead or hand. If you refuse the mark, the Antichrist will condemn you because by rejecting it (the implant, the 666, the mark) you are rejecting the new order of society which rejects God and worships this new world leader who is yet to reveal himself. The Antichrist is simply a powerful leader who is allied with the devil but no one will know this until he declares that he is God and demands the world to worship him. People will follow this leader because there will be peace and prosperity in the entire world (including the Middle East) while he is in power. THEN the catastrophes start happening.
1
Appendix 7
282 R01
Redlands
1 2
1
Appendix 7
283 R02
retarded
Retarded Wiki
1 2
See Also: Retarded User
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A Retarded Wiki is one that fails to meet certain basic requirements or fails to perform simple operations which result in the hinderance of the end-user's efficient and satisfactory utilization of the program. Why is this Wiki retarded? For me, it is due to the fact that it automatically logs you out after a short period of time - effectively wasting every effort you may have made towards furthuring the discussion and securing an appreciable grade. That is, of course, assuming you could actually get logged in to where you could edit pages in the first place! ;)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
If you have spent time responding to the question(s) only to find that, when you attempt to submit your additions/changes, the Wiki interface requests the Wiki password, further requires a re-login and miraculously loses everything you wrote/worked on - or anything else not allowing your operation of the Wiki to be smooth and constructive- feel free to vent, explain, share your experience(s) or post comments here. P.S. This page is not a discussion about the purpose of a wiki, a discussion about the page author's intentions, nor a space to pout about the author's expression of the unfortunate experience which prompted him to create it (which I simply erased because some users were whining about the author's alleged "whining"). Wanna complain about something? Create your own page... Enjoy!
26
1
Appendix 7
284 R03
retarded_user 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Retarded User A retarded user is a person who thinks the "Save Your Changes" button will magically click itself as s/he works on their document, and doesn't understand that in order to save the data s/he's working on, s/he must click the save button periodically. Having such liberation from said knowledge allows this person to spend an inordinate amount of time whining about a system, when they could just as well have spent half the time trying to improve the system instead.
1
Appendix 7
285 R04
rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Rural Environments At first I thought that living in an urban environment allowed me to have access to things I felt I needed. But at looking into this, I discovered that I spent most of my time trying to get to these things rather than actually being able to spend my time using them. Sitting in traffic and watching the traffic lights becomes really draining on my patience and makes me envious of people living in rural areas. I admit, they are not surrounded by thousands of people, the sound of cars, the feeling of being packed in like a sardine, and the constant reassurance that you don’t have any real privacy; but, being able to get up without the sound of your neighbors rushing off to work, going outside of your home and looking at some real plants rather than some carbon copied arrangement put in by the landscapers hired by your home owner’s association, taking a long deep breath of fresh air rather than having my eyes itch and the feeling of exhaust fumes burning my lungs, really sounds appealing. The thought of putting four years into my education just so I can get a job and pursue a career that will take me away from my home and family, sit in traffic on the way to and from work, and come home late just to get in bed so I can start my next day does not really seem like much of a life, oh wait I will have the weekends to buy my food, clothing, wash my clothes, maybe spend an hour in church, and yes, get ready for the next week. So, will I be able to get to even use any of the things that an urban setting provides. My idea of living would consist of having information accessible through the internet in a rural setting, I would be able to leave this setting and visit an urban setting if I needed to, but with access to the internet I could conduct my business from my home. I would be able to cook my own meals and spend time with my family, raise my children, and educate them in an environment that would allow them to focus on their education rather than the social setting that they see. This return to the rural areas would possibly allow society to return to a pre-Industrial Revolution society.
1
Appendix 7
286 S01
sample_page 1
This is a sample page.
This is red, blue, green.
2 3
Adding text is easy.
4 5
I just wanted to try adding some text to this wiki thing.
6
Redlands
7 8
Hi there.
9 10 11
Team Presentation Communication Pages
12
Team H
13
1
Appendix 7
287 S02
sardine 1
Sardine
2 3 4 5
If you have anything to say about living in cramped conditions.....feel free to list any grievances or give some examples of what it feels like to live in an apartment, condo, or with a roomate! This is a free for all page.
6
1
Appendix 7
288 S03
sb1834 1
From wikipedia.org:
2
•
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PURPOSE: Restrict the way businesses and libraries in California use RFID tags attached to consumer products or using an RFID reader that could be used to identify an individual.
California – SB1834
Defeated by members of the California state assembly on June 25, 2005.
10
1
Appendix 7
289 S04
scary_side 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
An observation I made while visiting the site is the potential danger it could foster. Some activities taking place on the site are termed “adult” and this just seems like a red flag to me. People can act out all kinds of “adult” fantasies in this virtual world. It makes me uncomfortable to think that teenagers could be exploring this site and encounter adults who want to make friends with them. I know it’s not real but what if someone cannot separate reality from fiction and becomes obsessed with the game and the activities taking place in the game. I read that there are clubs in Second Life where Avatar’s take off their clothes. Maybe I’m old fashioned but Second life seems like a place where anyone’s vice can be gratified because it’s only “pretend”. The growing popularity of this game paints a scary picture of what it is people wish they could do in real life. Soon we will see what it is that people really want the world to be. I’m sure advertisers will enjoy taking a look and catering to this group. Will the desires of this group be represented of us in the real world. Will we start trying to replicate Second Life in real life? For now, we know that the group involved is a mix of the naïve, the introverted, the lonely, others intimated by social interaction looking for identity and meaning in their lives and of course there are the capitalists, the tech types and the creeps. Does this group represent us correctly? Probably not, but as people become dissatisfied with the real world for whatever reason, this alternative “Second Life” may become more and more appealing as an escape. It does remind me of the matrix and I imagine the world growing grim and people retreating to their computers to live elsewhere. I see a future where the real world will have to compete with second life. Otherwise second life will become real life. Now that's scary!
1
Appendix 7
290 S05
searle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Searle has a point when he mentions the way humans attach meaning to symbols. Even after they attach the symbols, the meanings evolve over time. Therefore the machine would have to learn to evolve as well. The way that machines work now is all off of mathematics and what they are programmed to do. Therefore, there responses are either programmed or calculated. With the responses being such, they are simply an output like a mathematical function yields a value. Humans process information and can come up with multiple answers and all of which can be write. The computer, or machine, will yield only one response that comes from programmed information. Machines that are similar to the chess machines that play the world champions merely remember moves that have been inputted and create calculations to assess how to move. If the computer runs in to a point where it has not had inputted info concerning the situation, it does not know where to move; it has come into unfamiliar situation that it can only move off of past history and cannot really learn of the information. Humans can assess the new situation by itself and make a decision of the circumstances as well as the past. It seems that a machine cannot be programmed to understand all the aspects of a situation to come up with a reasoned response. The computer seems to only be able to run off of what it has been programmed to do; and when it comes to the chess machines, they are only able to assess the situation compared to past history. It would seem that it is implausible for a computer to completely assess a current situation and be able to think though it and come up with a reasoned response.
26
1
Appendix 7
291 S06
security 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
At least now if you get robbed they just take your wallet. Why on earth do we want to move in the direction of possibly being held at gunpoint in order to use our biology to access our money? Who wants to spend time with some armed robber? I mean we've all seen the movies, I'm sure there's a lapse in time before people catch on to theives and their methods. I don't want anyone trying to dig up a relative after a funeral because they're known to have cash in the bank. Then we'll have to start removing fingertips during autopsies. We'll have to know all the places where the deceased are registered in order to have the accounts closed. It just seems like more of a problem then a solution for consumers.
1
Appendix 7
292
S07 should_i_still_be_living_with_my_parents 1
When do you know it is time to go?
2
1
Appendix 7
293 S08
summer_vacation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
As of 5-17 I do not have to walk on this campus for over 3 mos. I don't know about any of you fellow MGSC 300 students, but I am completely burnt out. How many of you plan on relaxing this summer? Is there anywhere special that you may be going to, or something you may be doing other than studying for class....if you study at all? Or will you spend the summer at summer school for some stupid class you need?
8
Ill be working the entire summer. Also I'll be taking summer school. Its going to be a crappy summer to say the least but it has to be done if i ever want to leave college. Although I do have a vegas trip planned for the end of the month which also happens to be my birthday. Happy B-Day and have a great time in Vegas!
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
I really do enjoy Chapman, I think the students here are among the brightest I've seen (i've attended an Ivy League school), not to mention we have more women here than men, which is nice...and a good percentage of them are actually attractive!
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Actually, I'll be doing both. Am I burnt out? Hell, yeah. Am I going to summer school? Ugh, yes. However, I'm actually going to get a chance to put my education to the test in the real world. I had a great idea a couple of months ago and I've turned it into a "real" company, one I hope to be debuting this summer. Hell, something's got to finance my education. So I'll be working, but I'll be working on something I want to do, instead of "pumping gas for the man" all summer. I'll see if I'm learning anything at Chapman at all...
31 32 33 34 35
I finish my last final on thurs. Then I will head straight for my bed and get some sleep. Friday morning I leave for Hawaii for a week; I am gonna sit on my ass and soak up some sun. When i get back i will have to work to get some $ while I take a summer school course for my foriegn language
By any chance, is anyone here any good at graphic design & logo design? Post here & maybe you can make some money doing something you love this summer, too. Anyone else have anything interesting going on?
1
Appendix 7
294 S08
summer_vacation 36 37 38 39
requirement.......not looking foreward to that! The $ I make this summer will make its way back to Chapman next fall.....so I will once again be broke for a semester. Have a great summer and try not to think about FALL! Bye! I mean Aloha!
40 41
I will be taking summer school....
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
I feel that in order to graduate in four years and make the most out of college you have to work your butt off. Not only do you have to take a full load every semester, work if you want extra money, but also get involved on campus to make the most of your experiences. But that is what is so great about college you study your ass off from Sunday to Thursday go out to the bars Thurs, Fri, and Sat wake up Sun. and do it all over again. Here is my favorite quote about college, "To the nights I'll never remember with the friends I'll never forget."
52 53 54 55 56 57
i will be in summer school and working...but i live in hawaii and i always make time for the beach so i can t really complain, the women are hot and the weather is perfect, if anyone is going to visit hawaii hit me up on facebook or myspace...search valen ahlo
58
peace!
59 60 61 62
---Pinche escuela de verano. It'll be 40 hours a week at the office and two claases at night. It was quite a semester, it should be quite the summer.
63
2
Appendix 7
295 S09
superstitious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I don’t think anything will happen. People blow things way out of proportion because of their ignorance and there desire to believe in conspiracy BS. Everyone thought that something would happen in Y2K and anyone with half a brain knew it was a joke. And this 666 thing is another ridiculous idea. Most computers have the date recorded as 060606 and not 666 anyhow. This appears to be simply a superstitious notion blown out of proportion.
1
Appendix 7
296 S10
sylvester_stallone 1
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000230/
2 3
Bow before him!
4
1
Appendix 7
297 T01
team_h 1
(This is a page for Team H to communicate.)
2
Real World Case 3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
(Idea: Tim is smart, we can use font colors to tell each other's comments apart. I just added random one's to your names. In case you don't know, when you are looking at the "edit page" view you can see the color code by your name. Just use that when you add something.) Ian Gilmore (Powerpoint) 310.408.8722
[email protected] Daniel Krikorian? (Second part of powerpoint) Jennifer Manship (Paper) Tim Muraviov (Paper) 818.624-4344 Taylor Smith (Paper Ideas and Comments. . .
18 19 20 21 22 23
I talked to Stager. He said we don't even have to really stick to the exact case, he only assigns cases to help us get an idea of what to research. So if we want to totally focus on the medical side and axe the whole Ford thing, we can do that. It's up to us. So I guess we'll just see what we come up with from the research and what we put together on here. . . -Ian
24 25 26
Hey let me know about the second part of the powerpoint of email me your papers so i can get started on it. (Daniel)
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
***COURSE OF ACTION*** Since we are axing the Ford part of the case, we'll need a replacement for the study questions section. Professor Stager told me in an e-mail: "Just tell your story. What interests you about the topic? What don't most people know? Things like that. If it is interesting (just by the title it is) just give the facts. Don't worry about questions from me. Teach us all something and you will be fine. Okay?" Here's the order I think we should do things: 1) Do a bunch of research and post links to whatever relevant websites we can find. 1
Appendix 7
298 T01
team_h 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
2) The paper should be written first. I don't mind splitting the powerpoint with Ian but it seems like that's barely any work. If Jennifer and Taylor want to split the paper three ways (since there are three sections) between us, I can do one of the sections. Do either of you have any preference over a certain section? 3) After the paper is done, Ian can make a powerpoint from that. If Daniel decides to join us, him and Ian can split the powerpoint.
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Links - make sure the dates are 2005 or later
Do you guys agree? Sure, sounds good to me, I'll get some research done this weekend. . .
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/ http://www.providence.org/alaska/ppmag/robot_jun05.htm •Description of Case: ... •Case Questions: 1. What is the current and future business value of robotics? 2. Would you be comfortable with a robot performing surgery on you? Why or why not? 3. The robotics being used by Ford Motor Co. are contributing to a streamlining of their supply chain. What other applications of robots can you envision to improve supply chain management beyond those described in the case?
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
•Update on Case ... •References ... i do not understand how the paper is three parts. is it the description of case, update on case and something else. please let me know. taylor and i can just work on the essay although we need to outline
2
Appendix 7
299 T01
team_h 79 80 81 82
what we want to write about. you said that we were just focusing on the medical aspect of robotics so why is there a link to something about nasa... or did i not read it all the way through. basically we just need to outline what we want to say in the essay.
83 84 85 86
Introduction with a description of the case: How robotics are used in many aspects of life including the advances that they have made in surgical procedues.
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Body: Some examples and evidence concerning certain medical procedures that they have been successful as well as the ones that they want to do in the future. in this section we can discuss the pros and cons to robot surgery i.e. can operate over a computer miles away, potential of technical difficulties, how it takes many surgeries to become proficient, as well as the pro that they are smaller incisions and they can go through the throat and stuff like that.
95 96 97 98 99 100 101
Please just post what else we should include or just add to this so that i know what taylor and i should write the essay about so that we can get that to you as soon as possible in order to get the powerpoint moving. in the meantime just save pictures of surgeries that we could put on the presentation because those will catch the eyes of the people watching more than just words.
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
The third part of the paper goes between the description and update. We have to respond to the case questions at the end of the case. Since our case questions don't really apply to us, Stager said to me in an e-mail, "Just tell your story. What interests you about the topic? What don't most people know? Things like that. If it is interesting (just by the title it is) just give the facts. Don't worry about questions from me. Teach us all something and your will be fine. Okay?"
111 112
As for the nasa link, it's a link to the neemo project which it talks about in the case.
113 3
Appendix 7
300 T01
team_h 114 115
5/9/06 - So do I not have a job now that Daniel is doing the powerpoint? Anyone have any suggestions for me?
116 117 118 119 120
if you want to look some stuff up on the internet maybe put a link on here as well as what in the article you thought we should use that would be helpful! im going to be in the library comp lab early this afternoon working on research i will keep the page updated on what i find...
121 122 123 124 125 126 127
here is just a good over view of how the robots work: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/robotic-surgery1.htm it also has really good graphics for the power point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10312998/site/newsweek/ this is another good article too... again good pictures (some are the same) I will update in a bit with the points I think are key from each one.
128
Ok guys here is my summary from the newsweek article:
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
Stuart Forbes was diagnosed with prostate cancer in April of 2005. He went to many doctors for recommendations on what he should do. One doctor recommended that he have a traditional prostatectomy which would require an incision of 8-10 inches and at least two days recovery in the hospital. As if that wasn’t bad enough there was a possibility he would loose the feeling on the left side of his prostate. In June he learned about robotic surgery at a symposium and decided that was the type of technology he wanted used for his surgery. In August Dr. Ashutosh Tewari removed the cancer from Forbes’s prostate and lymph nodes using the da Vinci robotic system. Tewari, the director of robotic prostatectomy at New York Presbyterian hospital, never put his hands inside the patient and only made five tiny incisions to perform the surgery. Forbes was able to leave the hospital the next day and was walking three miles daily a within a week. It is estimated that 36,600 robotic procedures were performed in 2005 which is 50% more than in 2005. 70,000 procedures are estimated to be performed in 2006. Since the da Vinci was approved by the FDA in July 2000 350 units have been purchased. Each unit costs upwards of $1 million. Surgeons that use the da Vinci notice that patients have less blood loss and pain, as well as lower risk of complications during surgery. Patients who receive robotic assisted surgeries tend to have shorter hospital stays as well as faster recovery times compared to those patients who receive open procedures. The da Vinci system was approved for prostate procedures in May 2001. In 2001 only 1% of all prostatectomies were done using the system, in 2005 that number jumped to 20%. That figure is supposed to double in 2006 and hopefully continue to grow.
4
Appendix 7
301 T01
team_h 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179
In 2003 Dr. Mani Menon compares open and robotic prostatectomoies in the British Journal of Urology. The study consisted of 300 patients. In the study those patients who had an open procedure lost five times more blood, had a much greater risk of complications, and usually stayed in the hospital three times longer than the patients that had robotic surgery. Those patients that had the robotic procedure had a 14% chance of cancer removal and regained normal urinary function in about a month. On average robotic patients regained full sexual function in 11 months, while some patients that had the open procedure still had not regained full function two years later. In 2004 Dr. Thomas Ahlerin, chief of urological oncology at the UCI med center did a similar study with 120 patients. He found similar results to the study done by Dr. Menon.
180 181 182
if there is stuff you think we should keep for the paper let me know... same for cutting information out since it does not have to be that long... Thanks, Taylor
Cardiac surgeons have also begun using the da Vinci system for a wide range of cardiovascular procedures. In October of 2005 Dr. Francis Sutter performed what is said to be the first da Vinci double by-pass in Lankenau Hospital near Philadelphia. Gilbert Minacci, the 65 year old patient, received a single two inch incision on the left side of his chest. A normal open by-pass surgery would require an incision that runs the entire length of a patient’s chest. Minacci’s heart function was normal just a week and a half after his surgery. Dr. Sutter as since performed 30 coronary bypasses using the da Vinci system. While the da Vinci system seems too good to be true as far as the benefits it is lending to the medical community there are some objections to using robots for surgery. First of all, robots are very expensive, and hospitals often have to fund raise in order to pay for a robot. Also there is some concern that if a hospital invests in a robotic system, doctors may be more inclined to advice a patient to have surgery instead of using other treatment options.
183 184 185 186 187
i think that we have all the info we need just to put it together... i have some info as well. maybe the powerpoint should be started. pictures will be most of the powerpoint.
188 189
***Course of Action Part II***
5
Appendix 7
302 T01
team_h 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209
First of all, remember to stick to your font color, otherwise it's hard to figure out who says what. 1) Jennifer and I (Tim) thought it would be a good idea if the paper was finished by Friday night. Jennifer is doing the description of the case, and I guess I'm splitting the second/third part with Taylor. Taylor, just write whatever you can, send it to me and I'll fill in the rest including whatever study questions I can answer. On Friday night I'll send the paper to everyone complete w/sources and all that. Also, the paper is 3-5 pages, not 2-3 pages. 2) Ian and Daniel need to finish the powerpoint by Sunday night at the latest and e-mail it to everyone so that we have time to go over our portions. If you need to meet by then or something, set it up soon. Also, you guys need to allocate who presents what slides so we have smooth transitions. Try to give Jennifer, Taylor and I slides that are associated with our portions of the paper. Also, let us know if certain slides need any special explanations for the class. I'm going to put my cell number up near my name, you guys should do the same.
210 211 212 213
hopefully you saw what i wrote on the newsweek article... take what you want from that for the paper... i will get moving on a summary of the "how things work" article and send it off...
214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
5.12.06 1:00AM (from Ian) Hey everyone. I'll for sure make the powerpoint happen this weekend. Daniel: I'm not sure if Tim told you, but we're using this page to build the paper so we dont have to e-mail each other, etc. So they'll just get the paper organized on here, and once thier done, we can build the powerpoint from it. You can call me if you're unclear. I guess we can break up the powerpoint. But doing the first and second half seperate will be kinda odd since the design will be all off. What do you think about you putting together the text/bullet points on here (just make a new page or heading for the Powerpoint section) or in a word doc if you like that better, and from there i'll do all the fonts/pictures/formatting etc? Let me know your thoughts. . . (Tim, Jennifer, Taylor: As long as you guys get the paper organized in sections, etc (the original structure that Stager gave us in the sample paper is in black font at the top of this page) we won't have any problem making it plenty organized and seperated so everyone knows
6
Appendix 7
303 T01
team_h 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239
thier parts, etc. If you guys can maybe just make subtitles to seperate sections if they are more detailed than the original structure that'd be awesome. I can take care of the bulk of the graphics and everything, but if ya find something that you think would work well just post a link on this page and mention it's for a picture. I guess we can break up the powerpoint by Daniel and I doing the intro/close and you three doing your parts in the middle. I posted my cell and e-mail at the top, so anyone can contact me if they have any questions or concerns. I'll check back here mid day Friday, as well as Friday night. Talk to ya all soon! -Ian
240 241 242 243 244 245 246
so i feel bad but tim i tried calling your cell and it didnt work... anyways, my part of the paper is on my laptop at school and i am currently at home and wont be back to it until midday tomorrow.... i promise to wmail it to you then. as far as what to put on the powerpoint for my section i just outlined the article and so its really not that hard. ill try and get that to you by midday tomorrow sorry jenn
247 248 249
Well, Jennifer hasn't sent me hers either yet so I guess there isn't much that can be done about it. My cell phone should work...that's my number. Maybe you dialed wrong.
250
****5/13/06, 7:50pm - I e-mailed everyone the final paper. Hopefully
251
you guys can get the powerpoint done by tomorrow night. There are
252
some pretty good pictures at http://www.mos.org/cst-
253
archive/article/1623/index.html. If you click the pictures, they expand.
254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262
5.14.06 7:00PM (from Ian) Hey everyone. . .I have to go to a staff meeting at work right now, but I'm gonna finish up the powerpoint when I get home, then e-mail to you all, but it may not be till 1 or 2AM. We'll just break it up into 4 parts since we haven't heard from Daniel. This is how we can do it, but it doesn't really matter to me. . . Jen: Intro Ian: Update 1 (MOS.org)
7
Appendix 7
304 T01
team_h 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276
Taylor: Update 2 (Newsweek) Tim: Business Incentives/Conclusion Call or E-mail me if you have any questions. . .See you all tomorrow! Ian 5.14.06 10:40PM (From Tim) Hey guys. If you got the e-mail from Daniel, that's not the final powerpoint so don't memorize your parts yet! Ian will be sending us the final design in the morning so check your e-mail when you wake up. Also, Ian should have different slides allocated to each person. 5.15.06 2:00AM (from Ian) Hey. . .I sent the final powerpoint and wrote some details in the email. Call or e-mail if anyone has any questions, see ya all in class.
8
Appendix 7
305 T02
technological_divide 1
The Technological Divide
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In some respects, society has been divided into technology "have's" and "have not’s", with those who don't have access to the technology becoming more removed from the driving forces behind the technology - business innovation. Both the "have's" and the "have not’s" need to be considered when discussing whether or not "society" as a whole has benefited from the information revolution.
9 10 11 12 13 14
As mentioned in the Tampa Bay Business Journal article, Technology Divide Creates Social, Educational Cavern, giving people universal computer and Internet access to
15 16 17 18
While the entirety of society is never going to be equally suited to take advantage of technology, it is important to note, especially in South OC, that society extends beyond the Orange Curtain. Being aware of the technological divide can help people overcome the hurdle, which benefits everyone in the long run.
resources is just the beginning of the problem. Imagine a society in which everyone had the tools they needed to get online and take advantage of the technology (bringing us closer to a society in which everyone could benefit); not everyone would have the experience, intelligence or aptitude to actually use the technology.
19
1
Appendix 7
306 T03
the_great_war 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The Great War (WWI) During “The Great War” new weapons were introduced such as mustard gas, the machine gun, airplanes, submarines, and communications systems that took industrial technology applied it to military science. If humans could do things like this, could a thinking computer choose to declare war on humans for past grievances and abuses? Maybe I have seen to many sci-fi movies and have become brainwashed into thinking that computers would take on the same types of actions if they could think like humans.
1
Appendix 7
307 T04
the_myspace_controversy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Im sure that we are all familiar with the popluar Myspace.com and have even heard about all of the controversy surrounding it. Many people think that it should be restricted in work environments and that it is causing a number of kid napping instances to occur. What are your thoughts and feelings about Myspace.com? Do you think that it should be banned at work or even stopped due to the unfortunate kid nappings?
7
Here are some of the criticisms of the site:
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace#Criticism_of_MySpace
9
Here is the website for those of you who have never been on it:
10
http://www.myspace.com/
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Here is the fact of the matter regarding myspace. It is a great tool when it is used in the right way. If a kid in a new town or school wants to meet new people, it is great. But the fact of the matter is that it is just as often used for evil. Perverts trying to meet young little innocent kids, and drug deals, undercover clubs and such. I used to think that myspace was lame, until I started my own, and I joined the obsession too for a while. But now i don't really think its all that special. I don't really care about it one way or another, but I think that it can be definitely used to bad if put into the wrong hands...
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
When myspace first came out I was completely against it. I was considered one of the anit-myspace people and looked at the network as a another distraction from my studies and such. Last semester, a fellow student gave a speech in my public speaking class on myspace and a way to gain information on people or complete strangers. He gave the speech as if he was a stalker and it really creeped out a lot of people in the audience. He was just trying to prove the point that myspace is a terrible network and should be shut down, b/c it is way too easy to get a hold of people's personal information and find out where they live. I just recently got a myspace and found that it hasn't been a distraction that I thought it would be, yet I have also found it easy to find people that I want to find. To ban the site, I don't think is reasonable and will never happen. Myspace is the largest network of people and there is no way that corporate America will allow
1
Appendix 7
308 T04
the_myspace_controversy 37 38 39 40
myspace to be shut down. Personally, I have no problem shutting down myspace, especially if it will save kids or people for that matter from being kidnapped. It's too bad that people take a potential good thing and make it a bad thing.
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
My Space. Well, this is definitely a product of the information revolution that has been going on in the cyber world. My Space for the first time ever, has given the Average Joe an open window of oppurtunity to feel good about himself. They are able to go and customize their site to look as if they are hip and trendy, and the ability to post pictures that make them "look better" than they really are. These average Joes and Janes are now able to meet each other, where before My Space would have stayed in their parents basement trying to beat Doom or some other video game. Has My Space gone to far? Some may say yes, with the ever so increasing numbers of minors posing themselves as 18, 19 and is some cases 21 year olds. However this should not be the end of My Space, as it was designed to give anyone a chance to communicate and explore socially on cyber space. What about the Children? Well that then becomes an issue of the household. Parents should be solely responsible for the actions of their children. If their children are online trying to meet some 30 year old, what does that tell you about their childhood. It shows problems with their upbrinnging. So what do we do now? Well what we should do is leave myspace alone, afterall it is the people like the myspace founder who enable the ever changing dimensions of technology. These people are innovators and in some cases social reformists. Change keeps the upbeat of this country going. Parents should look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Why? Why, is little Johnny or Sussie trying to chat with a 49 year old man?" Well, here's a hint: Maybe it's because of your lack of attention to your children or your abusive behavior. In either case, I suggest the parent or parents seek counseling. And that's my take on MySpace.
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
I believe that the true potential of myspace, or another online networking community more geared towards the workplace, as a business tool has not been fully realized. Both email and instant messaging weren't considered appropriate for the workplace when they first emerged. Now the majority of internal communications are through email. Even instant messaging is becoming a popular form of communication in the workplace. Myspace, or communities like it, can be used and abused by employees. Of course, employees could sit and send personal messages to there "friends" during work, but Myspace also has the potential to network people within the workplace
2
Appendix 7
309 T04
the_myspace_controversy 78 79 80 81 82
and increase communication in companies. As with any new technology, it will take time for companies to utilize the power of Myspace to benefit their business, but I believe that Myspace, or communities like it, are the next generation of communication tools in the business world. I like Secrets.
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
As far as Myspace, as a safety risk for teens, I believe that it is important for parents and the Myspace website to educate teens on internet safety and ways stay safe from internet predators. Long before Myspace.com, when I was young and just began to use the internet, my parents warned me never to give out my location or name over the internet. I believe it's the responsibility of the parent to teach their children how to stay safe on the internet. If we stop Myspace.com because of internet predators, we should also stop all public chat rooms, public forums, and blogs. An easier solution is to educate children of the dangers associated with the internet and teach them how to avoid unknowingly giving away personal information. A BETTER SOLUTION? Instead of having to educate our children of yet another new danger that mysapace.com has introduced to our society, why don't we simply eliminate the danger all together? There is already a way to communicate worlwide with whoever you wish to online. Its called e-mail. This way you can give you address to who you want to have it and communicate with anyone you wish. Your information is kept between you and the people you choose to share it with. It is possible to e-mail pictures, share stories and link groups together. Myspace provides an easy way for preditors to take advantage of others who just want to use myspace for recreational or business use. Businesses should have their own private networks in which only company employees are allowed to join. With limited access to the worldwide web, only access to parts of the web needed for business opperation. These networks would be much smaller and easier to maintain. This would also completely cut out using the business network for recreational use. Despite its original intention Myspace has become a dating service and an outlet for stalking. Its very existance is showing the youth of today that this is a normal way of communication when it is in fact dangerous. Also, myspace gives users the option of keeping their entire profile private unless the reader is a "friend." This could also increase security. Myspace.com might also consider making private profiles mandatory for all users under 18. The Myspace website doesn't have to be dangerous for its users as long as they stay mindful of what they write and what they reveal about themselves to the public or to strangers over the internet.
3
Appendix 7
310 T04
the_myspace_controversy 120 121 122 123
I believe that the negatives of myspace are null and void. The fact is an unproductive worker will find a way to be unproductive with or without myspace.
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
While an unproductive worker will be unproductive one way or another, myspace make it easier for them to misbehave. If myspace could be eliminated there would be one less outlet for unprductive workers to use. Why make it easy and fun to be unproductive. I think myspace should be banned from all business based on the fact that there are other way that are much more directional and professional ways for businesses to link together on the web. Company websites and networks can serve these purposes just fine.
132 133 134 135 136
As far as teens, you can not restrict the access of everyone to something because someone might use it for something, this has been proven through many court cases and myspace is no different. It is like saying we should shut down all AIM servers and all chat rooms because of potential lurkers, it is ridiculous.
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
I understand why people think it should be banned at work, because although most people that are destracted by myspace at work could probably find something else to destract them, it still doesnt disgard the fact that it does destract them and is another avenue of destraction. But I feel that if you are going to sit at work and myspace people, you should be at home doing it and not getting paid for it. Might sound harsh but honestly its "work" not go to work and chill out, therefore work realted topics should be on your mind. And as far as myspace being a risk for teens, well so are riding bicycles and playing football. The risk for a teen is based on the individual and how they treat the site. For instance if a girl goes online to meet guys she should realize that there is a potential risk and if not then her parents should do a better job of watching out for their naive daughter. I mean honestly, of course there is gonna be risk if your talking to someone over the computer because your knowledge of the person is based off information they give u (basically second-hand info). So concluding I feel that I could understand why myspace would be banned at work and if I personally was running a company it would depend on my employees and their level of professionalism. I wouldn't be able to ban myspace because of some people who choose to not pay attention to the risks and don't use caution: that is their fault, not the sites.......
4
Appendix 7
311 T04
the_myspace_controversy 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Internet chatting and online profiles will always cause an increase in kiddnappings and murders. If you were going to ban the use of myspace in work places or anywhere else, it wouldnt really make that big of a difference. Myspace has been tremendously successful over the past year of operation and it is a great tool for communicating with friends and family online. It has helped milllions find old friends, relatives, etc.. and keep in touch. I have personally experinced this great opportunity to commicate with people i otherwise would not. Myspace seems to be a very addictive because it is entertaining to browse through the network looking for friends friend' etc.. Many probably do lose alot of efficiency in the workplace and it may be a good idea for employers to restrict their employess because they should really be doing productive work. There also another down side. There will always be creeps and stalkers that use the internet to obtain information about people. That will always be one of the many fallbacks of the internet. Parents should monitor what their kids watch and do on the internet.
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192
With Myspace, although I think it's sad that kids are starting to create profiles at such a young age, it is going to continue happening no matter what. Parent's obviously don't have the time (which is also a sad thought) to make sure their kids are staying away from it, but perhaps they could block the site? I feel that kids should be able to do their thing and have privacy or whatnot, but the problem is that there are sick creeps out there who target these young girls and boys whom don't know any better. I think the laws need to be more strict on catching these people, or the people using it need to gain the confidence and turn these aweful people in. I personally wouldn't be upset if Myspace was shutdown, however it is obvious that something new will replace it. It is unbelievable how much time can be wasted while updating your profile or searching for random people, and I'll admit, I am guilty of using Myspace, but I am not at the stage of being obsessed. I REALLY don't think it should be allowed at work, and I know of many schools that have blocked the site so that students can't go on during the day. But like everything else, there are ways to get around it.
193 194 195 196 197 198
Although there have been some issues regarding one's safety on myspace, especially children's safety, one cannot confuse the issue of internet safety and the role that myspace plays. One's safety will always be put at a certain level of risk when on the internet. Whether we happen to be at risk on a site like myspace or something else like Craigslist, people will always find a way to do the things that they want to do. There have been issues of 5
Appendix 7
312 T04
the_myspace_controversy 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208
children missing and other societal misfortunes as a result of multiple websites and myspace cannot be held responsible for something that is a problem with the entire web. As far as work-related issues, so too will people at work find something with which to keep themselves occupied, be it myspace, webgames, chat websites or any other interactive website. People need to be controlled in their work environments from their managers. Most people will always take advantage of their time at work and myspace should not be held responsible for lack of managerial control. If it wasn't myspace, it would be some other aspect of the web and the countless sites accessible to multitudes of people.
209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
Personally, I would never join myspace. Knowing that someone could look me up from high school makes me a little nervous. The idea of getting on with my life after high school has always interested me, that's why I decided to go to College. My brother has a posting and he always seems to come into contact with some of my old friends that I would like to forget about. I randomly hear how they are doing when I would rather not know. If I had a space on mysite I am sure I would receive some emails from some spooks from the past. I also have a horror story that happened to a really good friend of mine. Someone made a duplicate of his id and posted a history of some things people should not know, and also a couple of stories that were completely untrue. This friend's little brother was able to read the site.....he then directed his parents to it immediately. Another friend of mine met a girl on myspace….he began talking to her over the phone for a couple months…then finally he decided to drive to San Diego to meet her only to find out that she was not the same girl. Yes, she lied, and presented herself in photos online as 200 pounds lighter than she really was. It took him a week to finally tell me what happened to the girl he always talked to and how the meeting went. But, that’s just how I feel. If other people enjoy it, hey, I wish them the best, but remember that some of those pics are sometimes a little old or possibly someone else.
230 231 232 233 234
The topic of safety is always an issue. Teenagers are always going to do stupid things….that’s their nature. Some don’t and that’s great, but the one’s who go to meet someone online always seem to have something a little wrong with them. So, I don’t think that MySpace should be shut down.
235 236 237
The key to MySpace is not to give out personal information. People should be careful on who they accept as friends. If a person on myspace is worried about safety, then they are able to change their settings for only friends and 6
Appendix 7
313 T04
the_myspace_controversy 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248
other certain people to view their profile. That way they are able to talk to the people they want safely. As mentioned above, MySpace has become tremendously popular and successful. There is no stopping this trend and there are now multiple other sites such as Xuqa or Facebook that are put in a more controlled environment where someone who is not in your "network" cannot view your profile. The one thing I don't like about it is where anyone can send you a message. There is so much spam that is going around that it is not fun going through multiple messages. A good thing about it is that a MySpace user can stay in touch with people and others that they haven't talked to in a while. For the work situaiton, no one should be doing MySpace if they are at work. The computer should be used for work related study only.
249
I totally agree that while using myspace you shouldn't give out personal
250
information, because almost any one and everyone can see what you have
251
posted on myspace. I think that myspace should enforce an age limit on the site
252
to protect younger kids. Kids a lot of the time won't think about what they are
253
writing on their page and won't know that anyone in the world can just go onto
254
the Internet and look up the information that they have put onto their myspace.
255
The kids might put their address on there page so friends can mail them letters
256
but not knowing that a complete stranger is reading there page and trying to get
257
information on them. Having an age limit and then requiring kids under 18 to
258
have there parents sign off on the page and read a release form laying out the
259
possible dangers of myspace would create a safer myspace. If the myspace
260
page enacted a few of rules to protect younger kids and inform them and their
261
parents about some of the dangers. Myspace would still be able to run smoothly
262
and younger kids would be more protected.
7
Appendix 7
314 T04
the_myspace_controversy 263
Myspace as mentioned already is totally up to you, what you want people to know and
264
see is what they will see. I hate it when people complain about how horrible/stupid
265
myspace is, it all depends upon the people using it. I am 21 yrs old, I have minimal
266
information up on my page, and it works for me since it lets me keep in touch with
267
people and old friends I wouldnt otherwise do so. We have to be able to understand that
268
the reason kids get kidnapped, the reason business have employees not doing work is not
269
merely because myspace exists, it is because of the people on myspace. There are so
270
many idiots out there that they ruin a potentially good thing. Kids should't be consumed
271
for hours on a computer nor do they think that it is harmful to display private personal
272
information. So what can be done? Well if you think about it realistically very little. If
273
someone wants to lie about their age, they will. There will always be a way of getting
274
onto Myspace, therefore it is up to parents of those kids to restrict what their children do
275
on the internet. You can't blame Myspace for a person's choice to do something, you can't
276
hold a Myspace community responsible either by shutting it down, if a few people choose
277
to ruin myspace by using it for pornography or child abduction search those people out,
278
delete their accounts, whatever is necesarry, but stop blaming Myspace for people's
279
actions. As for business finding more workers on Myspace than actually doing work, well
280
as an employer you can resstrict access to that website and you should. If you feel that
281
your employees or even you children/siblings shouldnt be on Myspace, restrict it,
282
Myspace should be used on your own free time and if you are mature enough to deal with
283
it. oh and if you read the article attached above, it really gives some insight! i
284
NEVERstoppped to think about how myspace could be used by employers to distinguish
285
whether a possible candidate for a job is worthy or not, it really makes you think if you
8
Appendix 7
315 T04
the_myspace_controversy 286
have an account, on whether or not your information and page are appropraite for public
287
viewing.
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
People definetly need to watch their backs while talking to a complete stranger regardless if it was in person on the street on through some sort of community like Myspace.com. I have myspace and think for the most part it is entertaining. I can see what my friends are doing who I dont live near any longer. People you havent seen or talked to since whenever you could find on myspace. Although Myspace can be dramatic and cause conflicts between friends or bf/gf's. I dont believe that getting on myspace should be allowed at work though. When you are at work you should be doing work not playing around on myspace. There is a time and place for cruising myspace. But just keep in mind that whatever you put on the web can be seen by just anyone and dont post anything you will regret later in life.
300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317
OMG! i am soooo sick of hearing all this crap about myspace.. honestly ok its a fun stuipd thing for TEENAGERS... to get on and flaunt what their momma gave them or didnt give them and feel loved when they get comments or nething else. Also the reason why i capitalized teenagers is that there is a freaking age barrier people. Anyone over they age of 25 should not create a page and anyone under that age of 15 shouldnt have a page... first of all why the hell would the parents allow their 14 year old daughter to be on the internet throught this worldwide personal page?? kinda weird... and why would any old faget want to make a page ... im thinking midlife crisis here. Secondly..... freaking chapman and all the businesses that are using myspace as a background check need to cut that crap out.... it is our own personal thing we are doing this shit on ur time not urs! just because we drink one night doesnt mean we are going to drink every freaking day before work or school... honestly give me a break... there should be some privacy issue thing made for this kinda shit.
318 319 320 321 322 323
In response to the comment above, I disagree. Yes, some people use myspace as a way to "flaunt what their momma gave them" but I also know a lot of other people who actually utilize aspects such as the networking to get jobs and to meet people that might be able to help them find work. Also, myspace is a great way for people to get out their name or advertise their product to a large group of people. I 9
Appendix 7
316 T04
the_myspace_controversy 324 325 326 327
know that the website has been very effective for local bands to get their music heard. Yes, myspace is not for everyone. But don't discount the fact that it does have some practical uses aside from posting pictures or pseudo-stalking.
328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
Whoever wrote that, i love you. I am so tired of damn myspace. What a waste of time. PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO! get up of your lazy butt and get off the house and something. Its so lame how guys try to pick up on girls through myspace or vice versa. I mean come on a guy can say whatever they want online and not feel bad about it, meeting a person online is nothing like meeting them in person. People need to grow up, if you want to get in contact with someone pick up the damn phone and leave them a message. And if you really want to talk to them why send messages back and forth on stupid mesage boards when you can just IM them. Myspace is all for show, its a bunch of people just trying to show off. Plus there's security reasons as well. People can pretend to be anyone they want to be. Sex offenders could be talking to little kids and no one would ever know. Its really scary if you think about it. Also any one can find you through myspace, people you dont even know but would want to know you...freaky! Goood Myspace is ridiculous, i feel bad for people who spend hours looking through people's friend network. People seriously have confidence issues. Dont be shy, just get up and go meet people. Its not that hard
347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364
Hey- Calm down, peeps... Myspace isn't for everyone, but it certainly has its advantages and positive uses. Hell, I met my last six-nightstand on Myspace! Sure, I'm officially scared to meet another, but that's not the only opportunity MySpace affords its members. As a communications matrix, the potential of this system is remarkable. Instant messaging, email, pictures, profiles, ads, customizable pages, group support, music, entertainment...if you're going to be online, why not be on MySpace? You could do far worse. Ebay costs money and Google has more porn than pertinent search results. Myspace supports a worldwide forum where people can connect with classmates (new AND old), discover new hobbies and is a far better "dating" service than any site you have to pay for...trust me, I know. ;) Plus, a kid can deface the grounds all he wants and no one has to be hired to clean it up. It's an outlet for so many people that would otherwise not have one at all. Sure, it'd be great if everyone was into sports and activity-based lifestyles instead, but the truth is that 90% of individuals aren't or are incapable of being such. MySpace is the only thing keeping thousands of kids from becoming complete social
10
Appendix 7
317 T04
the_myspace_controversy 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378
recluses. It has its downsides, obviously, but none worth ignoring its benefits. Coke and cell phones give you cancer. Ipods ruin your hearing and you're more likely to die on a ride at Disneyland than on a motorcycle. You think kidnapping and sexual predators weren't a concern before myspace? We've just become more aware of the frequency of such events because MySpace has helped increase our communication channels. The offenses do not occur any more often than they did before MySpace. If you're not into it, you don't have to be. It is worth noting that, in my experience, even those most opposed to MySpace love it when they give it a chance. There's no obligation - no fees, no log-in requirements...you don't even have to talk to people! But, if you are even the slight bit curious, a great network of communication, style and fun is only a web address away.... ~ Masta' C
379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407
I have a sister that is twelve and she has a myspace account and I think that it is pathetic. All her friends have an account also and it consumes up a lot of her time. I used to have a myspace account for a while and then I decided to just cancel my account because it was becoming an addiction. This whole myspace controversy is getting annoying. The Internet has many dangerous things, especially for children. And since the article suggest that many children are being kidnapped because of myspace, then the parent has to take some action. They have to make their children aware of the situation. I always tell my sister that she better not talk to strangers, and not to accept friend request from anyone she doesn’t know. I also made sure that her last name, address or zip code was displayed on her profile or in her account. I don’t have anything against this site. Have fun with it, just do it in a safe way. I was listening to the radio station the other day and they were talking about myspace. Some parents were calling in and they were saying that they have some software installed in their child’s computer that saves everything. It saves the history of where they have been browsing as well as the passwords to every account the child has. Now I think that this is way out of line. It has gone too far. What parents should do is establish good communication with their parents and be open about everything. No child should be afraid of going up to their parent and discussing a serious issue, because if there is no communication then the child might be doing bad things behind their parents back. The issue of myspace in the work force has been taken to the extreme. Yes, I do understand that companies after reviewing a persons profile on myspace might have second thoughts about hiring a person. But, why would an employer have the time to go around searching for a person on myspace. Being an employer, I could care less what their pictures or a persons profile looks like. All I care about is if they are doing their job correctly and following up with orders. I think that most employers should only care about the personality of the person and their qualities and if they are fit for the job. They shouldn’t go and hunt their myspace profile. Most of the pictures that people post up on
11
Appendix 7
318 T04
the_myspace_controversy 408 409
myspace are of them having fun. No one should be penalized of risking a job just because of myspace.
410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421
Myspace was created to fill the gap in personal networking that has been existent ever since the first people started chat rooms in AOL. This is just technology. It was intended to be used as a social networking tool and has been quite successful at that. You don't blame a carpenter's hammer when a house he constructed falls down into rubble, you must blame the carpenter. Myspace is the same way; yes there are sexual predator’s online using myspace to find their next victim. Can we really blame Myspace for providing them the avenue to meet their prey? No I don't think so. I do believe that it is Myspace's responsibility to provide a safe online community for its user, and they have been upgrading their screening process to keep under age users off the system. In regards to myspace use at work I think it should be banned from the workplace for the sole reason of increasing productivity during the work day. This could be said of many websites not related to social networking.
422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432
My space is just like every other internet network where people can go to meet other people. I think it's a little sad that we're in a society where people feel isolated in their own environment. The only way they feel heard is if they hide behind a little web page with a profile they created in hopes of attracting someone. Maybe that someone will be desperate enough to carry some online conversations and possibly even meet someday. To drive hundreds of miles to finally meet someone you met online just seems like people are not living in reality. What stands out to me is that people have given up on their destiny. These my space users are not trusting in God to make their lives meaningful. They have lost faith in their future and are not confident enough to let nature take its course.
433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying be passive either. Taking an active approach in the course of your life is important but I think these people are going about it the wrong way. This my space seems like a short cut, a lazy approach to social interaction. All you have to do is read and write emails bs-ing all day talking about what kind of life you want and saying you are who you think people want you to be. Then someone out there says me too. But then these two get together and it's not as fulfilling as expected. All that suspense for nothing because both people are shallow and empty. They can't get anywhere because neither of them is real. Like the person with the my space 6 night stand. How meaningful is that? Like they say, talk is cheap and all this my space stuff is just a cop out for dealing with real life. Then there's the creeps who take advantage of kids who are too young to know what's going on. They have this glamorized view of the world because of TV and dressed up myspace sites. So there they are on my space making it obvious that they want attention and there goes the petafile.
446 447 448 449 450 451
Ok so yeah, some people just use it to communicate with their own close personal friends and do not make their profile public to strangers. But most of the younger users care too much about fitting in, being liked and having friends. This my space generation is dangerous because these peer groups are not sharing the right values. It's just like watching TV. It's another source of influence and peer pressure. Parents think just because kids are home they're safe. But again just like the Second Life website, My
12
Appendix 7
319 T04
the_myspace_controversy 452 453 454
space is not creating any new problems, it's just a new place for existing problems to surface. It reveals what's going on in peoples minds, how they see themselves, who they want to be and who they want to attract.
455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494
This is a great topic for discussion. I do not feel that myspace should be shut down do to the great amount of kidnappings. It is a shame that there are sick people in the world that would do such a thing, however myspace should not be blamed for the actions of others. Before myspace was ever up and running these same problems were and still happening with the numerous other chat rooms. The fact of the matter is that the “web” can be a dangerous place for many people. The best thing do is implement better parental controls and offer more education regarding these problems. Shutting down myspace really does not solve anything. There are dozens of similar things being created everyday and they carry the same problems. As far as myspace being banned at work, I do not think that is a bad idea. After all shouldn’t these employees be working and not playing on myspace. I am not sure what type of operation these companies are running if they are allowing there employees to entertain themselves with the computer during work hours. It sounds to me look a relaxing, stress-free work environment. Kidnappings and the various other negative aspects that are often associated with MySpace are nothing new. There is a different story on the news almost every night about how MySpace is filled with stalkers and pedophiles. The problem is that MySpace is becoming a scapegoat. There have always been avenues for pedophiles and stalkers to run free (such as various chat rooms, message boards, and other websites such as LiveJournal.com). The only reason MySpace takes as much heat as it does is because it is the new "hip" thing. Think of it from the felons' point of view. Where can I go to do what I want to do where it will be easy? All MySpace has become is a scapegoat (one of many over the life of the internet). Personally, I believe MySpace to be a good thing. Aside from all of the negative BS, it allows friends to communicate more often than they normally would, it allows people to get a hold of friends they haven't seen in years, it allows for people to meet people with common interests, etc. The social networking possibilities are endless. In my opinion, it's the wave of the future. My name is H16 and i'm probably one of the few people on this wiki who will admit to being a myspace user. first off- everyone on here has been on it, so to say it's lame and for little kids is sort of inacurrate. I personally think it's a fun site and it was great to have when I moved to Europe to keep on contact with friends over here. Yea, some of it's cheesy, I admit, but overall, it's not different than Facebook or anyo of those other sites. Ok so on to the point: should it be shut down? No, not unless you want to shut down all of the other networking sites. I don't know why Myspace is being the scapegoat in all of 13
Appendix 7
320 T04
the_myspace_controversy 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
this. Most of us grew up when AOL was just coming out. I bet almost everyone in here when they were 12,13,14 had a cheesy screen name and chatted at least once online. I remember my parents used to freak out because of all of the AOL kidnappings with kids being lured away or something. My parents explained to me to be responsible and that was that. I think shutting down the site is just wrong. Parents need to explain to their kids how to be smart about using the internet in general, not only Myspace. i think it's a parenting issue. If you're worried about your kids using the site, block it, just as your would block gambling or porn sites. Other than that, I think Myspace is being used as a general target to blame for the lack of boundries and protection from parents. I think there will always be controversy around dealing with people posting things online. I personally don’t have a myspace and I never have. I might be one of the only people that can say that. The whole idea just never appealed to me. I think that is a cool idea though. It’s a great way to keep in touch in with some friends that you have grown apart from, but I think the website as a whole has morphed from what it started out as. Now there is the whole privacy issue and people don’t put their real names on it and make up a lot of the answers that they put down for the questions. I always heard that you get viruses on your computer from myspace and looking at other peoples profiles because they are individually made. I do not think that young kids 14 years old should be on myspace or have their own profiles. It’s the parents fault for letting them have it. It’s more of something I see people doing in their late teens and early twenties, which is a good age to do that. I can see why it would be fun to create your own page, brag about yourself, and feel like people like you when they leave you messages. People should remember that they are representing themselves and portraying a certain type of image by what they put on their page. I do think that it is your personal choice what you put on your page and it shouldn’t be used against you like in the case for employers. I think that employers who look on myspace and make decisions based off of it, should not be doing that and it’s unfair. It is easy access for employers to try and get some inside scoop on the person. Over all I have nothing against myspace and judging by the popularity of it, I can see it is loved by many. I still don’t want a myspace and I never do but I don’t think it’s a bad thing for those who have it. Personally I think the hole world needs a shot or something. We are way too paranoyed about things. If a sick and twisted kidnapping mind has it in his head to steal a person and torture them well Im pretty sure that the elimination of MYspace.com will do nothing for this problem. Sick people are an inevitable truth. They exist and there isnt shit we can do about it. Detroying the ease of social connection that Myspace allows will not only make kidnappers spend five more minutes thinking. As far as taking advantage of myspace.com at work, well thats your own opinion. You see these people everyday and interact with them everyday. I dont see how an online page describing your personality and interests is going to change anything. Back to the idea of crime through Myspace.com. I agree that you could possibly be making yourself more vulnerable. Yet, as far as it increasing the rates of crime I dont beleive so. If it doesnt happen to you it will to somebody else. Regardless of it few flaws, Myspace does wonders for people's social awarness. Its a whole lot better than TV and it helps with dating! 14
Appendix 7
321 T04
the_myspace_controversy 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583
-chip Lewis One of the biggest problems with MySpace is that often accessibility because it is set up so that anyone can customize the layout and colors of their profile page with virtually no restrictions. Most MySpace users are not skilled web developers and this sometimes causes problems. Poorly constructed MySpace profiles have been known to freeze up web browsers due to bad coding or as a result of users placing many high bandwidth objects such as videos and Flash in their profiles. Another problem is the fact that the MySpace community is growing very rapidly. New features have been put on the page such as video and song sharing through streaming media. With users joining daily the volumes slows down the servers and may result in error messages such as-Server Busyduring many peak hours. The security problems are real. It is possible that some users risk privacy and security by posting information such as their home address, phone number, or the last name due to their lack of experience. MySpace does restrict the accounts of new users but it must also first warn people of this when they sign up. For the first seven days, a new user is prevented from posting in groups or on the message boards. MySpace claims that this is needed to prevent spam but more security measures must be implemented.
I used to be completely against MySpace... could not see what the big deal was and just thought that 1- there was too much drama occuring over something that is supposed to do the exact opposite- connect people and 2- was just a way to SHOW OFF how many friends you have (hence the people with 300-600 friends listed on their page who they have only met once, but need to prove to everyone else that look- they are cool cause they have so many friends) so anyway. that was my beginning criticisms of the site and now I have given in to MySpace and have my own account. I dont think MySpace is bad anymore if you dont get involved in any of the drama of it- it really is a good way to keep in contact with people. Good friends from high school that I had completely lost contact with I can now talk to on a regular basis. MySpace also allows an option to set your profile to private so that no one that isnt your "friend" on the site can look at it. I know there are a lot of criticisms now trying to put a stop to MySpace but I think the stop needs to come from the parents who are allowing their 14 year old kids put pictures up of them in their underwear and provocative poses. Where does the problem really lie?: with MySpace, or the people who were sadly raised so poorly that they feel they need to put these sexy pictures up of themselves-this is just asking for stalkers to find you and harrass you- throwing bait at the shark. If you dont want people to harrass youput your profile on private and take down the provocative pictures it really is that simple. A criticism that I do agree with is that it is soo time concuming and distracting- sadly to admit I have a hard time going online and not checking my MySpace first... it starts to become part of your daily routine and really can be distracting. I do think that MySpace should not be allowed in the workplace but at the same time I think that people should not be on any website during 15
Appendix 7
322 T04
the_myspace_controversy 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625
their office hours- you're not getting paid to be entertained online- but to do your job, which Im sure does not involve MySpace -- Unless you are Tom :) MySpace is a site that should be restricted, not banned but definitely restricted. This site can be used to do a lot of harm to people. The main concern I have is for younger children who are exposed to older people and the risk they run as a result. I think I read the youngest who can subscribe are 14 which is extremely young to be exposed to older age groups. I know someone made a comment that it’s the parent’s fault for not taking care of their kids, and I agree. However, a child who suffers any kind of abuse or hurt will become a troubled adult, who can harm all of us. Not every child is fortunate to have parents who properly monitor his/her life, so it’s up to the community to do so, regardless of whose fault it is because in the end we all pay the price. Even college students, sometimes might be unaware of the repercussions their present comments will have in their future. As one of the website states, there are some current and future employees who have used this site to judge the character and intellect of a future or current employee. Another problem is the one mentioned by one other website that expressed concerns about gossip. This can be used to destroy people’s reputation and character. Many have probably not thought about the harm that can be caused, and some evil and callous people might even find it fun to hurt others, but most of us don’t find this amusing. I think it was Oprah who did a show about a girl who had to change schools because of the vicious rumors and lies spread about her on a school website, don’t know if it was MySpace, but the girl’s reputation was destroyed. It is correct for schools and workplaces to restrict the use of this site. First, employees should have something better to do than to be on MySpace.com, something called WORK! As far as students, their time could be used more appropriately and more constructively, but I guess it satisfies some people’s loneliness and need for attention. Maybe it’s got to do with the Hollywood influence, the need to be famous, to have people know about you, and to have others see what you look like, perhaps, a lack of purpose in life. I don’t know, but I’ve seen people on this site while class is in progress. Maybe they have their priorities confused and don't see this ought to be left for their spare time. Who am I to judge? Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their time, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, however, MySpace should be restricted as far as in schools and wor kplaces. * In addition to business, I am also a communications major. Last week we presented our senior thesis to the class, and one guy did his on myspace. It was particularly interesting because he had never been on myspace before. It
16
Appendix 7
323 T04
the_myspace_controversy 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665
is hard to imagine someone being in college and not being on myspace at this point in time. He looked at it in terms of computer mediated communication and how people go there to gain social support. It was a new take on the whole myspace debate, and so very fascinating. In the end, the researcher became addicted to myspace himself, and had a hard time putting into words why that exactly happened. I think that Myspace.com did start off as a place to network but with so many people using the site for their own sick use the site has become a place for predators. It is really unfortanuate that there have even been kidnappings as a result of this website. I have heard of too many problems and that have arised from this one website. I did have a myspace and I found the website to be addicting, because people are able to view other members sites without them knowing. People can snoop around and no one will ever know. I got rid of my account because of the creepy people that would try to be my friends and the thought of them looking at my profile just made me feel uneasy. I don't agree with children having a myspace b/c they are easy targets for child predators and unfortanutaely some children and parents found out the hard way.
Myspace, Myspace, Myspace…. As far as the kidnapping goes, any parent that allows their child on Myspace is CRAZY AND IRRESPONSIBLE! So, banning Myspace because there are too many stupid parents out there that are letting their twelve year old little girls plaster all their personal information and pictures on the internet, is ridiculous. How I feel about Myspace in general is not much different. I know so many people that spend hours and hours on Myspace every day. They put all these pictures on the website of themselves trying to look sexy and thinking they are hot. They post journals telling everyone about the awesome party they went to that weekend, trying desperately to feel like they are cool and have a life. Well, anyone that can sit on Myspace for hours and hours EVERY day DOES NOT HAVE A LIFE. I often hear that Myspace is a great way to keep in touch with old friends and communicate with all your friends. PICK UP A PHONE. STOP BY THEIR HOUSE. How impersonal and nonsocial has our society become? If they are really your friend, you would pick up the phone and set up a day to hang out. You wouldn’t just
17
Appendix 7
324 T04
the_myspace_controversy 666 667 668
sit on Myspace and post messages to them, or whatever you do on Myspace. Just voicing my opinion. Hope I don’t offend anyone. Maybe I just don’t get the whole Myspace thing.
669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703
I LOVE MYSPACE. I think it is GGGGGRRRRR-8! I love getting messages and comments everyday. People that don't like myspace probably don't have any friends and feel like dorks when they come home and don't have any comments or messages waiting for them. I personally have gotten in touch with many friends from elementary school, junior high and high school and I think it is sooo fun to see how they have changed or turned out since then. I also love to look at my ex's pages to see if they are in relationships now. hahah Just kidding. I know that some people are creeped out but the idea of strangers being able to look at their pages, but they can set their account or blogs to private so only theri friends can see them. And they can deny people that aren't their friends and don't trust. I really don't think that people who have myspace have "too much time on their hands." It is just something fun to check out when they do have some spare time, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are on it all day long. I think it is a great way for new bands to get heard and entreprenuers in the arts to gain exposure. However I don't think that is appropriate for other business professional to use myspace. It is important that people don't mix their personal lives with their professional lives. Furthermore I think it is an invasion of privacy for employers to do background check via myspace. What people have on their pages and thier personal life shouldn't have anything to do with their performance in the workplace. Also if people haven't put anything unprofessional on thier page but thier friends have posted an innappropriate comment, their friend comment could cost them the job which is really unfair. It might be a better idea to have a "business space" for people use use myspace for business networking. I also think it might be a good idea for there to be a "teen space" like myspace for teenagers so that teenagers don't associate with adults. Maybe there could be a way that the teenager must be able to prove that they are enrolled in high school that way old perverts can't get on the page and pose as teenagers in order to talk to teens. And kids should definately not be allowed to have a myspace account! It is so annoyting when 12 year old request to be my friend! Their parents need to take responsibility for their kids.
704 705 706
I’m not a die-hard fan of myspace. I have a myspace account, but I’m not that into itmeaning my background is white and there’s not music playing when someone views my profile..i know, like so boring…However, it is extremely annoying that my work thinks
18
Appendix 7
325 T04
the_myspace_controversy 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728
that I should not be allowed to access my account at work. Honestly, they don’t even know how boring my job can get. Therefore I don’t think myspace should be banned in the workplace. I’ve heard about some incidences with girls and creepy old men stalkers and that’s definitely a serious matter to consider. I don’t think myspace should be stopped just because of this because the majority of people are not on the website because they are out to get someone or molest little children. One thing that should be done in regards to this safety matter is that the parents need to be involved. If the parents know their child has an account, then they should monitor what information their child puts up for people to see. There is a way to make the profile private if the parents wanted that as well. Another thing that could be done is there could be a warning when people sign up to not put too much info about them and just have some caution. I don’t know if anyone watched SNL www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ last night, but the chick from Seinfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seinfeld was there and the musical guest was paul simon (why? I don’t know). Anyways they did a skit about myspace and there were creepy old men taking a class on how to do a myspace profile. It was funny, but disturbing. Seinfeld chick opted not to let her daughter have an account. Just a side note, I think it’s kind of ironic that people (including me) are putting up links to wikipedia on our wiki pages. Also, if you look at the Seinfeld site and then compare that to George Bush’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush you will see the Jorge’s is only a smidgeon longer and that’s only because his has more links at the bottom.
729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742
I think that myspace is really annoying. I would never get an account and don’t understand why anyone would want one. I can think of so many better things to do. How boring to sit and type to your friends, go hang out with them! I really can’t even comprehend why people do this so much. I would never want to post all these pictures of myself on there either, what is the point; half the people don’t even look the way they do in their pictures anyway. I wouldn’t like people being able to look me up and search for me, kind of creepy. And I definitely wouldn’t put any personal information on there. It should definitely have some kind of restrictions for young people. Irresponsible parents are not taking care of their children so in these cases I feel the site is liable to restrict the younger users. Sitting at the computer any longer than I already have to for school would just be torture. When I am finished with homework I want to get away from the computer. I hate the idea of sitting and sending notes on myspace.
743 744 745 746 747 748
honestly, banning myspace from the work area will create more productive workers. i know too many people that waste their company's money by fooling around on myspace. the kid napping case, well the parents should be aware of what their child is doing on the computer. and the kids that are gullable enough to fall for fake people should be more careful. OTHER THAN THAT, i am considered a
19
Appendix 7
326 T04
the_myspace_controversy 749 750 751 752
myspace whore and i am very proud of it. i do take certain precautions when it comes to being my friend and who can view my page or not. ADD ME IF YOU WANT...SEARCH VALEN AHLO OR copy and paste this link http://www.myspace.com/illest_element
753
20
Appendix 7
327 T05
topics 1 2 3 4 5
When we begin to work through these various topics, we need to remember Bohm's ideas about dialogue. When I sent each of you your ids and passwords, I sent a copy of a short description of the process of dialogue. Using this along with the lectures on dialogue, should be used as a guide for how we conduct ourselves.
6
One other note: we also need to think of Carse who states:
7 8 9 10
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other, infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose on continuing the play" (Carse, 1986, p. 3).
11 12
We should make every attempt to use this wiki as if we were playing an infinite game.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It will be my attempt to present two or three topics each week for your input. It would be ideal if you could comment on each topic. I do understand that some of these topics may not move you to expressing an opinion. Therefore, if you feel strongly about one of the topics, it is ok to present your ideas on just that topic. It is also considered a contribution to arrange/edit others' input. I will review each week on Sunday or Monday from next week until the end of the term. There will be four review cycles. Therefore, each of the cycles will be worth 25% of your final (3rd) test grade (200 maximum points) so that means a possible 50 points for each review. If you are under one week, extra work in the next week will possibly give you more than 50 points. I am looking for quality in your contribution rather than quantity. So, let's get started.
26
Week One Topics
27
Week Two Topics
28
Week Three Topics
29
Week Four Topics
30 31
1
Appendix 7
328 T05
topics 1 2 3 4 5
When we begin to work through these various topics, we need to remember Bohm's ideas about dialogue. When I sent each of you your ids and passwords, I sent a copy of a short description of the process of dialogue. Using this along with the lectures on dialogue, should be used as a guide for how we conduct ourselves.
6
One other note: we also need to think of Carse who states:
7 8 9 10
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other, infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose on continuing the play" (Carse, 1986, p. 3).
11 12
We should make every attempt to use this wiki as if we were playing an infinite game.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It will be my attempt to present two or three topics each week for your input. It would be ideal if you could comment on each topic. I do understand that some of these topics may not move you to expressing an opinion. Therefore, if you feel strongly about one of the topics, it is ok to present your ideas on just that topic. It is also considered a contribution to arrange/edit others' input. I will review each week on Sunday or Monday from next week until the end of the term. There will be four review cycles. Therefore, each of the cycles will be worth 25% of your final (3rd) test grade (200 maximum points) so that means a possible 50 points for each review. If you are under one week, extra work in the next week will possibly give you more than 50 points. I am looking for quality in your contribution rather than quantity. So, let's get started.
26
Week One Topics
27
Week Two Topics
28
Week Three Topics
29
Week Four Topics
30 31
1
Appendix 7
329 T06
tracking_devices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
RFID As a Tracking Device There is often confusion regarding the term "tracking" when discussing RFID systems. The term "tracking" is not (necessarily) synonymous with "locating". There are several different types of RFID systems: 1. Passive RFID: This is the most common and least expensive type of RFID. An example of this would be the FastTrack system used for the Toll Roads in South Orange & Riverside Counties. The devices are basically "dumb", meaning they contain only a unique identifier in them. This means that, when you go under the toll road scanner, the only thing that is transmitted to the scanner is the unique identifier of the FastTrack device - no customer or personal information is contained in the device. Once the computer sees that the device with an identifier of 8675309 goes through, the servers match that up to an account number they have on file for you. Passive RFID is read-only data cannot be changed or added to the device. No actual "tracking" (in the most common sense) takes place here. What is being "tracked" is your usage of the toll roads. The FastTrack device is worthless without the associated customer information, which is still sitting safely & securely on the FastTrack servers in a data center somewhere. The term "tracking" can also be defined in terms of the supply chain, not something's actual location on Earth. Another example would be the American Express Blue card. Data is actually stored on the card in the same way data is stored on the magnetic strip of a credit card (you did know there was data stored there, right?). Despite the fact that the Amex Blue card has had a RFID in it for years, it's still not possible for Amex (or the Federal Gov't) to locate you. The term "tracking", in this case, is used to describe other data relevant to Amex and you - whether it's shopping habits, keeping track of Amex Rewards Points, etc. 2. Semi-passive: Same as passive, but contain a battery. 3. Active RFID: Contains the ability to "broadcast", as opposed the other two types, which will respond to a signal from a beacon only. When considering the devices' ability to remotely transmit data, it is important to note that the beacons transmit only a few meters, as opposed to being able to track everything on Earth from a satellite.
1
Appendix 7
330 W01
week_one_topics 1 2 3
The topics this week come from a book from Thomas A. Easton called Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Science, Technology, and Society (2nd edition).
4 5
Week One-Topic One Will the Information Revolution Benefit Society?
6 7
Week One-Topic Two Will It Be Possible to Build a Computer That Can Think?
8
1
Appendix 7
331 W02
week_one-topic_one 1
Week One - Topic One
2
Will the Information Revolution Benefit Society?
3 4
To present this idea, we turn to John S. Mayo for the affirmative and to James H. Snider for the negative.
5
The Issue:
6 7 8 9
YES: "The information revolution will benefit society by slowing migrations from rural to urban areas, aiding economic development, and improving access to education, health care, and other social services."
10 11 12
NO: "Because the information superhighway will make it possible for more people to leave the city for rural areas, human impact on the environment will become more pervasive and more difficult to control."
13 14
Please comment on either or both of these two views of the question or add your own.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
* I disagree with James H. Snieder's negative stand on this idea. I do not believe that the information revolution will cause people to leave the cities for rural areas, because I think that if people are already settled into their urban areas they will not move out to the rural areas just because that opportunity is now possible, so I do not think that we have to worry about the environment in this context. In terms of John S. Mayo's idea, I think it is much more probably that the migrations from rural to urban areas will be slowed with the information revolution.Nah. I think we give IR or any one factor too much power. People will make their decisions based on a collection of many factors.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
I agree with the statement made above. If anything I believe that the Information Revolution will cause people to want to preserve those rural areas from becoming urban areas because they will be able to. Do you really think that through information Revolution preservation of rural land will occur? I feel that John S. Mayo said it best. The information revolution will benefit society in fields of education, economic development, etc. but to think that it can preserve rural areas from becoming urban is idealistic thinking. It might stem in
1
Appendix 7
332 W02
week_one-topic_one 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
small preservation here and there, but generally speaking it will cause rural areas to become urbanized. Think of it this way, you take medical technology to a third world country, that once rural area has in a way become urbanized, and more advancements lead to more change, so as much as we want to preserve what rural land we have left, technology is making it easier to access those areas, and they too will one day be affected by the information revolution.
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
I too agree with the statement above disagreeing with James H. Snieder's negative stand on this idea. But I think that the information resolution will cause some people to leave the cities for rural areas because they will now be able to do there work via internet and other information resources. Although people will be leaving the cities it won't really matter because there will be an influx of others from suburbs or rural areas coming into the cities. I feel that the two shifts of people will more or less even themselves out. Although if there was a major shift in people leaving the cities to move to urban areas the environment would definitely be impacted in a major way and alot more effort would be needed to preserve the environment. With people moving to urban areas houses, roadways, and buildings would be erected all over affecting every dimension of the environment.
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
access information on why it is important to preserve nature, and people like to be close to each other. They seem to congregate together, and though information may be easily accessible, it doesn't replace contact from one human being to another. The exponential growth of the human population may force people to move slightly outside of the immediate urban super cities, but never too far away. The important impact of the information revolution comes from Mayo's reference to the economy, education and health care, the areas that this will most greatly affect human society. I also think that being able to access information easier people can learn new ways to conserve the enviroment making the Information Revolution beneficial to society!
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
I do think that if it does have any impact on where people live it will allow more people to be able to live in the rural areas. I think this is true because you can do so many things on the internet now. For instance, you don't really have to leave your house anymore to go shopping for clothes or food and some jobs allow you to work from home. I agree with the statement above that says that information techonoly will slow down migration from the rural to the urban areas. The reason that most people live in urban areas is so that they have access to things such as stores and being closer to their work and with the internet, you no longer need to be near those things, because all you need is your computer and a connection to the net. 2
Appendix 7
333 W02
week_one-topic_one 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Most companies have been forced to rethink how the Information Revolution affects them as the globalization of the economy and competition - enabled in large part by information technology. This may have brought about large-scale changes in the structure of larger organizations as new products, services, and efficiencies have been made available to companies. IT has presented an unprecedented range of organizational options for companies and institutions by enhancing communications linkages through computer networks, phone, fax, modem, video conferencing, or e-mail. This allows different types of functions within a company to be optimally located in different settings: towns, cities, regions, or countries, depending upon the specific requirements of that activity. Who is to say that the inverse of Snider's theory is not happening as the relocation of back office functions out of high-cost urban centers to suburban locations-- or, more recently, to smaller towns or off-shore locations. If implemented correctly, it could allow the offices to be located in areas closer to their markets providing customers with locally knowledgeable associates.
86 87
The technical revolution has already changed Human Evolution, perhaps beyond repair.
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
I think it is great that we are looking at these gentlemen's statements about impact of the information age on urban migration. I disagree with both of them in their assumption that the information age is going to stem the inflow of people into the cities. Cities developed originally as centers of trade built around natural resources— ports, rivers, forests, etc. I understand that the information age will make cities less centers of trade. But the information age will not be able to significantly reduce the other necessities that draw people to city. Jobs in this country should see a shift from services to manufacturing over the course of the next fifty years as the world finds better ways (EU as an example) of protecting economies from the effects of lowwages in asian Nation. As manufacturing increases we should see a return to the cities as centers of production and supply, and their size will continue to grow. Sure you can order your new designer jeans and your formalwear online, but you have to be close to your boss or your customers. Another feature of cities is creating economies of scale for government management of waste and resources. It is very expensive to dispose of waste when one lives in the desert because it is so remote from a collection facility. In the city it is much cheaper. As our needs for recycling and better waste management increase, the difference in cost for disposal and recycling will make city life much more appealing. Isn't it acceptable policy to truck waste to the rural areas from the urban, because to economy of the rural areas is more accepting and in need? If interested in further stories of this sort... Steven Seagal's movie Fire Down Below, is excellent. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119123/ And I for one wouldn't want to go to a "virtual bar" and drink "virtual beer" with someone posing as a "virtually hot single." I think other human encounters are much better one-on-one and people will always gravitate towards that as the above responses indicate. Econ1s1t
118 119
I agree with Mayo in the fact that the internet has become such a strong force in our world today that you can do just about anything
3
Appendix 7
334 W02
week_one-topic_one 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133
that you want from anywhere in the world. It is no longer necessary for someone to live in a big city in order to have a high-paying job or run a successful business. There are millions and millions of Americans who are able to live in the quietness of their homes and run successful companies because of the internet and the unlimited abilities it brings. I think you will see a lot of people moving away from these urban and smog infested cities into more rural ones and be just as successful business-wise. Why deal with the traffic and crime of a big city when you can successfully run a business from a much quiter setting. I think that in the future we will see a trend of people moving away from big urban areas, which will help not only those people, but also the urban areas, in terms of crime and pollution. The information superhighway can only help in our goal to create a stronger and safer environment.
134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
I agree with the statement above, as the information revolution is ever so increasing it gives humanity, pariticularly Americans, the opportunity to broaden their horizons. As we have all witnessed, the real estate market particularly in California has sky rocketed within the last 5-7 years or so. With this in mind people have more than ever before the opportunity to move to areas in which they have always dreamed of livingl. With the ability of informaiton to be spread and recieved more effectively, people who are able to afford too have moved into more rural areas in California and out of the more heavily populated urban centers. These same people are able to work from their homes rather than in the urban cities. Therefore the information age is bringing us more opportunities and options to do what we desire.
147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155
I believe that both of these points are mainly "mooo". They are both to be viewed as positive and negative long term externalities and not much more than that, mainly because these effects are not what the IR is aimed to do. These effects can be counterbalanced by simple measures such as taxes and other normal methods that governments and privet organizations use to remedy externalities. If to many people are living somewhere and you can't have that, lower taxes in a different area, and the people will come. There are positives and negatives that you can debate until you are blue in your face, but the fact is they are easily controllable and just a blow off of what the IR really is. So what, say you, REALLY is the IR?
156 157 158 159 160 161
I do agree with the previous comments in respect to what was stated about the internet being such a valuable source of information and tool. A good deal of shopping is done online and I think a lot of people especially in rural areas have come to rely on it for their needs. I do not think that there will be a large increase of people moving out of the cities into rural areas. I think there will be a slight increase from those people who only lived near the city to purchase things they can now buy
4
Appendix 7
335 W02
week_one-topic_one 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
online. I think most people will stay where they are. Even though a lot of jobs can be done at home through the computer, I still think there is a great amount of jobs that still need their employees to come in and work. People enjoy the city atmosphere and I think that’s why a good majority will stay. People who move to rural areas won’t have access to the vast amount of restaurants or entertainment that a city has a computer cannot provide. I think the technology will help out society in many areas. I agree that it will help schools out a lot and help to make improvements in the education program.
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207
Snider is wrong in his understanding of how there will not be any way to control people in rural environments once they leave urban areas. Is he making the statement that the people leaving urban settings will come and destroy rural areas? I think that a person leaving an urban setting has more of an appreciation for his environment and will choose to preserve the setting. The only thing that could change things would be the number of people entering these settings. The more people that come into rural settings will bring in more developers in order to provide the population with more housing, schools, shopping centers, grocery stores, ect. The information revolution will help to alleviate some of these changes by providing an environment for buying and selling products online, education could be conducted through tele-courses and real-time discussions with fellow classmates and instructors, and allow a reduction in the amount of buildings constructed to house these activities. At the same time, all transactions, communications, and transportation can still be monitored and restricted if necessary. I think it is obvious that the IR has already benefitted society and will continue to do so. There is no denying that. Yes, people in urban settings might move to more rural settings and people in rural settings might not want to up and move to a more urban setting and IR has something to do with both cases but, with or without IR, it would still happen. I don't see an issue either way. I think what really has been affected by IR is human interaction. Because everything is done now via internet, technology is everywhere, and everything is electronic , human interaction is lost. We are social beings. Down the line, I think that IR will have some sort of effect on our society, socially. We have instant messaging, email, facebook, myspace, internet dating, online shopping, etc. so that you could potentially go weeks without interacting with anyone. Granted, most people want human interaction, so that most likely wouldn't happen. But there is something to be said for the many situtations where interaction is lost because of IR. To go further with this throught, there are many parts of human communication that are becoming more fragile. Face to face interaction is the closest to accuate. The spoken conversation(eg.phone) is the next removed. The written word( letters or email) is one step further away from intimacy. And in a sense, email is further removed from handwritten letters because of the visual cues gained in the writing. Also the time it takes to write a word is longer, therefore more time for thought and consideration. How many times have you experienced being misunderstood in an email? It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could say that the Information Revolution would not benefit society. There are many positive factors that I can attribute to the Information Revolution. Just look at the progression of technology over the past twenty 5
Appendix 7
336 W02
week_one-topic_one 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
years from just a medical standpoint. Today, most hospitals have access to MRI, CatScan, and other types of machinces that were only made possible by the Information Revolution and the rapid progression of technology. Many diseases such as cancer have been detected and prevented because of such machines. These machines have shown society things about human biology that was only speculation and theory until this type of technology was available to give us the truth or the facts. Let's compare medicine and the internet for a moment. Say someone goes to the doctor and they are prescribed a series of drugs for a certain ailment that they have. In the past, you had two choices; 1. you could trust the doctor to know what they were doing or , 2. you could get a second opinion from another doctor ( which in some cases is still necessary). But now you have the interntet where you personally can research any human ailment that has been documented, and find many sources of information for almost anything that you would want to know. Take those prescriptions that I talked about a moment ago. You can go online and research those specific drugs yourself and find out are taking the right drug at all, if it will work in conjunction with other drugs, and find out any reactions that may occur with that specific drug or drugs. I have done the research for myself before, and it is very interesting to see what kind of information is out there for anyone to use. I can Snider's side of the argument, but I do not agree. As we discover more and more about the world that we live in, I feel that we as humans are becoming more environmentally conscious, or at least I hope that we are. Hybrig gasoline engines, e85 ethanol/gas fuel for cars, hydrogen powered fuel cells are all attempts to cut back on the pollution that cars produce, with the ultimate goal of eliminating pollution altogether. These technologies could only have come about from the Information Revolution. So one can see that discrepency in Snider's argument. However, there is one factor that I agreee on and that is of overpopulation. The Information Revolution is helping humans to live longer than ever, allow parents that couldn't have children before to have children, and stopping deadly diseases from killing many people. While all these factors are great benefits, the world population grows everyday. As the years go by, there will be more and more people and less and less space for those people to live in. With this in mind, I can agree with Snider somewhat because, at the rate that humans are going, there may not be an environment left. Also Mr. Stager, could you post info on how to create other pages and all that cool stuff? I forgot how to and it seems that most people don't know how to either. You use square brackets "[ ]". Whatever you put between the brackets will be the new page name. After you save your entry, go back to the page and find the new page that will have a "?" behind it. Click on the question mark and you will be editing your new page.
243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
While I think everyone above has made valid points, I think that there is a valuable recent statistic that would in fact support Snider's argument. According the US Census Bureau, there is a growing number of Americans moving away from the cities and into more suburban and rural settings MSNBC article. Just think of the local example: how many people do you know who have moved from the coastal areas (i.e. Orange County, Los Angeles) to Riverside County? Or even look at the 6
Appendix 7
337 W02
week_one-topic_one 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269
growing number of those migrating to Colorado and Nevada. While the aforementioned examples are not rural per se, they so show a population shift that was made possible by technology. Personally, my family moved to rural Oregon but because of technology, my dad has been able to maintain his business in southern California, without any problems. I do agree with Snider that this shift will in fact have an impact on the environment. Technology has been beneficial thus far, but one can not disregard the problems it has and will cause to the environment. Technological development, it can be argued, has affected ecosystems in developing nations. Even in our own backyard, the ability for Americans to live outside of the city has caused a population push that has forced the overdevelopment of the land. Landslides on developed hills and the loss of wildlife sanctuaries for suburban sprawl are a testament to this shift. By no means am I speaking against technological advancement; it has done much to benefit humankind. I am simply agreeing with Snider, in that caution should be exercised with this growing trend.
270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279
To determine whether or not "society" benefits from technology, it's important to consider the portion of the population that comprises that society. Orange, LA, and Riverside Counties (and the people who live there) have benefited tremendously from the information revolution. Excessive network bandwidth in our area makes it possible (and very cost effective) to have remote employees that can commute from LA and Riverside Counties. Colleges in the area have benefited, as well. Many community and state colleges & universities offer “off-campus” or “distance” learning programs, which benefit both students and universities. In this respect, it's obvious how technology has benefited us.
280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289
However, other areas of society have clearly not benefited. While the technology clearly benefits those who use it, it also creates a divide amongst people in different demographics - a bit of a Technological Divide. whoa yeah!How much benefit “society” receives from technology depends on which side of the technological divide a person (or group) is located. Here in Orange County, we have an abundance of resources that allow us to take advantage of the information revolution. Because of this, it’s easy to say how much technology benefits us. I can’t imagine, however, trying to compete in today’s business environment if we were in BFE, Iowa, which may not have the same resources to take advantage of the technology. You would be surprise at what the local yocal's have and are savy to. There are asparagus farmers on the midwest who are on the 7
Appendix 7
338 W02
week_one-topic_one 290 291
internet nightly comparing different agricultural programs' thought on crops and seedlings.
292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304
* Society will be advanced so much with new technology. From the technology that we have today and lets say in 10 years from now there will be god knows what then. Education will be taught online practically 100% with web cams inside the house to make sure the student is doing the work. Getting ahold of a doctor and showing and explaining what is wrong on ones body to a doctor online will become apart of our society i believe. Yes, people will want to get out of the house but with technology and its advances the world i think will be soo much easier and people will have to learn and buy the newer technologies because businesses and the way we will be living our lives one will not be able to get by. Sooner or later everyone in a household will own a personal computer and the internet will be the main source of communiction. The rural areas will be more populated and i think this will be better than having people live practically right on top of each other due to technology. It is something that society will just have to get used to and deal with.
305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327
I dont know if i agree with society being advancing, perhaps on a technological level yes, but on a social one, i dont think so. Neighbors and friends will simply IM one another rather then going outside to converse openly. However, on an international level, technology will be able to link people thousands of miles apart better than it does already. Internet phone lines are also a large contribution to the technology being advanced today. Not only does it work as effeciently as a land line does, it allows for lower rates. While all of these things along with other aspect of the technological world advancing, many issues arise such as societies dependence on the technology it needs. One black out or short circuit and everything is shut down. Take example the new lines of cars being created. These vechicles are no longer cars, they are moving computers. Mechanics will be replaced with computer IT people at the rates at which cars are becoming dependent on electronics. No longer will the days of popping the clutch on a dead battery be possible. One little problem with these automatic push starts and your car is worthless. Yes, cars are far better today than they were lets say 10 years before now, but at what cost. All the technology in the world and it still cost 40+ dollars to fill up a small tank of a car. I don't know maybe im a little paranoid, but i just dont like the idea of soo many things being connected together, cuz if one fails, they all do.
328 329 330
I agree with his negative statement. If the IT communication tools are develop as same as today’s pace, the society need more powerful centralize control system at urban city because of 2 reasons.
8
Appendix 7
339 W02
week_one-topic_one 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
1, Even though the telecommunication technology and free trade on the web dramatically increase, the real distribution and supply of materials are needed huge labor force thus people = cheap and young labors coming to urban side. 2, The IT development will cause more complicated systems and have a high risk about draining financial and individual information. So, I think the IT need will lost the tension because IT worker will be prepared more highly skills in near future.
339 340 341 342 343
Mayo says that because of the IR the rate at which people move to the city from rural areas will decrease. As a result, this will aid society in a variety of ways. Snider, on the other hand, says that the IR will cause the rate at which people move to rural areas from the city will increase. Society will suffer as a result of this.
344 345 346 347 348 349
So both men agree that more people will be living in rural areas as a result of the IR. They just disagree as the consequences of this…or do they? With more people staying in rural areas, Mayo says there will be economic development and improvements to access to education, health care, and other social services. With more people moving to rural areas, Snider argues that human impact on the environment will be more “pervasive” and uncontrollable.
350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
Snider’s argument does not make it sound like he is all that against the IR. Just because more people will be in more places in our country does not mean that the effects of this will necessarily be negative. He is just saying that it is going to be even harder for us to take care of the environment. And while more people living in rural areas may not positively effect our environment, the absence of people in those areas isn’t going to magically make the environment perfect. Humans are going to screw up this planet no matter where we live. There are probably plenty of places around the world that aren’t that developed in terms of technology but still have “dirty” environments.
358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
The information revolution has already greatly impacted our society. At the end of World War 2, the first electronic digital computer weighed about thirty tons and was unavailable to the general public for obvious reasons. Today is a different story. Just about everyone owns a computer of some kind and some of them are small enough to fit in one's back pocket. Also, the amount of knowledge computers are able to process today is amazingly greater compared to what they were able to do when the first one was developed. Because computers are able to do so much today, the lives of many have been significantly shaped. As the information revolution continues to benefit our society, it will also act as a double edged sword. One thing that some might
9
Appendix 7
340 W02
week_one-topic_one 369 370
overlook as computers become more and more depended on in our society is the issue of computer cri
371 372 373 374 375
I think that the information revolution will greatly benefit society. With the advances in technology there is a need for more information to keep on top of things. I feel that Snider's argument was not justified and he needs to accept other points of views.
376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386
The Information Revolution will no doubt benefit society in every way possible. Opposing views as outlined by Snider seem absurd and purposely non-conforming. I completely agree with the above comment that through the increased advances in technology there is a greater need for information due to the larger supply. This need for information directly cooerlates with what should soon be seen as a decrease in ignorance. What are people more concerned about here: More traffic on the freeways or a global understanding and a gain of knowledge through the IR. The IR highway is like opening a portal of knowledge to society so that we may be more dependent on factual information rather than external influences like the media.
387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397
The Information Revolution is definitely improving society. Just look at where our technology is today and where we were one hundred years ago. We are able to do things we never thought possible. Even comparing today, and thirty years ago our society has advanced as a whole tremendously. Just imagine where we will be in thirty years. Advancing technology helps people’s health, with new equipment in hospitals, as well as improving quality and time efficiency for many businesses. The rate at which work can be done has increased tremendously which is a benefit to our economy. The GPS has acted as a security device as well as a life saving tool for many. I don’t think that it will slow migration; people will live where they live regardless of technology. They live in their comfort area and will continue to live in the area that best suits them. Maybe a few will move, but this will not dramatically change the environment.
398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406
Information Revolution will benefit society, it already benefits society. However, I believe there will come a point when people will have to draw a line as far as how far IR will go. There are some people, myself included, that will not want IR to go so far that privacy is non-existant. IR will eventually experience a backlash, a roadblock of some sort that will, not stop it, but will be contained. IR can only go as far as we let go, and once IR is perceived as a problem rather than a solution, all bets are off for IR. I would like to agree, though, with the previous comment about IR being a dependent source of information rather than external influences like the
10
Appendix 7
341 W02
week_one-topic_one 407 408
media. The media has time and again disappointed with its biased views, and IR has helped in uncovering some of this.
409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426
I agree with the above statement made. The perception of IR is all based on the people using the information and therefore I feel that IR will become a problem in future times. I feel this way because I think that the information revolution is going to allow all walks and facets of life to explore and see new revolutionary things taking away from the balance that life needs. I believe in the saying sometimes its better to not know, because once u know the information and the possibilities as a human u know what are able to view what it is that you are exactly missing out on. Therefore as of now I feel that the IR is beneficial to society, but if the IR trend continues, I agree with the statement above that eventually it will hit a breaking point where no longer is IR a solution rather it will become finding a solution to the new existing problem. But I disagree with Snider's opinion because I feel that IR will not have an impact on migration throughout the U.S. If anything I feel that IR well prduce more migration towards more technological cities because in this new day and age technology entertains and I feel that most people would want to be around the center of the technological advancements which would most likely be located in heavily populated cities....
427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
*We have all noticed that technology progresses as time goes by. Technology makes life a little easier and fun. A problem that some people may have is that with all these new advance in technology jobs can be cut down. For example, an ATM machine is a self serve service. One puts in the ATM card into the machine and the machine does all the calculations necessary to conduct the service. Year’s back this type of innovation did not exist. In order to get money you had to go directly to the bank and the teller would basically be the ATM machine. Because of the ATM Machine technology society has been able to eliminate the job of being an ATM teller at the bank. Now there are machines that do it and provide the customer with higher satisfaction, and convenience, because these machines are all over the world. Going back to Information Revolution, I don’t agree with Mayo or Snider because a person is not just going to pack their bags and leave from the city to a rural place or vice versa. I think that the more Information Revolution grows it will get harder to find an actual job because in the future technology will be able to do everything.
441 442 443 444
I think that the IR will cause either or. Like i stated earlier one or the other will occur but depending on how many people get involved. Goods things are bound to come out of something. But bad things usually always to be in the shadows of anything good. We as humans will never fully agree on everything it is just not possible. But having IR would I
11
Appendix 7
342 W02
week_one-topic_one 445 446 447 448
think speed up growth in rural areas. So this would be good. Growing up in Bakersfield which was soo boring IR would attract more people and newer and exciting things would appear in Bakersfield. The population would expand and for me being around more people is what makes me happy because I am less bored then.
449 450 451 452 453 454 455
Information Revolution has much more benefits than it does negatives. People naturally hate change and its always been like that. People do not like to embrace change even if in the long run it is going to make things easier for them. Now, just because there is resistance does not mean that there will never be acceptance. Information Revolution will happen, and people will eventually be forced to accept the changes because if they don't they will fall behind the rest of the world. Think about if you never learned how to email somebody...now learning wikis is starting to sound kind of beneficial right?
456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483
Ok having considered the Information revolution, why not consider how many occurences taking place around the world today seem to resemble what Bible scholars refer to as steps toward "One World Order." Technology has brought humanity to a place where being separated by thousands of miles is not enough to stop the meeting of minds from convening in space. Globalization in business is changing societies and erasing nationalism. People are leaving their culture, their homes and their families to pursue wealth, change, autonomy, and an active role in the modern world. Resistance to the effects of these changes are predicted to inevitably cause conflict. Reports of this phoneomena are already being disseminated. People are expected to ultimately surrender traditional beliefs out of desperate want for peace and prosperity. Technology is the accused cultprit which threatens isolationists by creating information channels that introduce propaganda, influence consensus and bring awareness of opression. Gradually borders are disappearing as technology undermines long standing political structures and economic forces. A new form of connectedness is emerging and exposing the disadvantages of unbalanced power between state officials and the people. Utter frustration will soon cause constituents to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated into denying their human inclination toward self-government. The compromise of hygemeny will finally wear out and in its place we will find ourselves introduced to a view of the world where one language, one religion, one currency, one government and one way of life is deemed essential to our survival. It will be the compromise of the soul for the sake of personal comfort on earth. Will you surrender your faith and merge?
484 485
How could the information revolution not benefit society? Just look at all of the ways society has benefited thus far from all of the technological innovations. Not too long ago
12
Appendix 7
343 W02
week_one-topic_one 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494
many people would have thought it would be impossible to created cellular phone. Today everyone and their brother own a cell phone, and most of them would feel lost without it. It is truly amazing how much a silly hand held device like a cell phone has simplified the lives of so many. Today many professionals can handle important business stuff just by using there cell phones. This aspect of technology is extremely beneficial to the general public, because it cuts down on the time that professional people have to spend in the office, thus allowing for more personal and family time. In the long run this will have a positive effect on businesses, because their employees and the work environment would become more pleasant.
495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529
It seems that most people agree with Mayo when he says "The information revolution will benefit society...aiding economic development, and improving access to education, health care, and other social services". The impact on the environment, while important and substantial is more a result of the increasing population across the globe. The fact that Technology has allowed us to communicate quicker and more effectively only makes it possible for people to comfortably move to less urban areas. While this is a factor in damage to the environment, it is minor compared to the rate at which the world population is growing. The information revolution has become a part of the natural progress of mankind, to write it off as evil because it damages the environment in a roundabout way is ridiculous. The ability to communicate faster has actually benifited the environment more than it has hurt it. Using GPS navigation and advanced weather imaging technology, forest fires, hurricans, and tsunamis are becoming easier to predict and properly contain. The spread of information has also allowed science to move in leaps and bounds toward finding more efficent ways of helping the environment. For example, Hybrid Cars? are becoming more and more popular as the price of gasoline skyrockets, in part due to lack of supply. Yes absolutly. I beleive that the "Information Revolution" will and has benefitted society. Without the "I.R" this Wiki post as an alternative to taking a final and completing a number of arguous homeworks wouldnt even be an option. My everyday life as a simple college student would not be the same without the Information Boom. Due to the Internet virtually 50 percent of my classes dont even require attendence. Powerpoint coupled with chapman.edu makes it possible to view whole lectures online. Now, I dont know if this makes be a better person or a better student. What I do know is that it frees up my time so that I might be able to do other things with my college career than just just study. The Internet makes my life more efficient. I learn everything I need to as a student and still have time to work. Not to mention I can create lasting realationships with people that will most likely benefit me in the future more so than the intricacies of the elasticity of demand. The Information Revolution makes life more valuable. People now have the capability to accomplish more...I dont see how this can be a bad thing. I believe that the information revolution is beneficial to society. Technology is a tool invented to make original tasks faster, easier, and in some cases obsolete. Potentially, ofcourse anything can be abused and used in a negative manner, especially powerful technology that we
13
Appendix 7
344 W02
week_one-topic_one 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551
have obtained and continue to discover. I agree with the statement that the information and technological revolution can greatly improve the social environment in many ways. For example, the invetion of the computer and the internet has enabled people to reach limits never dreamed of before. We are able to have global netwroks with people all over the world, educate ourselves on any subject we dream up, and find solutions to problems, from simple to complicated. In addition, the information revolution has revolutionez the business world because companie are enabled to share information immediately. This has spawned a whole new kind of glabal business networks that are growing exponentially. I don't see it as a bad thing for people in the cities to move to rurual areas. And no matter what, this is going to happen anyway because cities are constantly growing and people are always trying to move out of the highly concentrated areas. Human impact on the envirionment may becomre more pervasive and more difficult to control, but humans could also use information technology to find ways we cane improve our environment. Also, information technology could also be used to spread the word about what we can do to preserve our envirmonment. I think the information revolution will benefit society so long as we use it in the right way. After all, the more we know- the better.
14
Appendix 7
345 W03
week_one-topic_two 1
Week One - Topic Two
2
Will It Be Possible to Build a Computer That Can Think?
3 4
To present this idea, we turn to Hans Moravec for the affirmative and to John R. Searle for the negative.
5
The Issue:
6 7 8 9
YES: "The necessary steps in what he considers to be the inevitable development of computers that match and exceed human intelligence." He describes this evolution in the following steps and when he expects them to occur:
10 11 12 13
1. 2. 3. 4.
The Dumb Robot (2000-2010) Learning (2010-2020) Imagery (2020-2030) Reasoning (2030-2040) (Easton, 1997, p. 210-217)
14 15 16 17 18
NO: "Searle argues that a crucial difference between artificial (machine) intelligence and human intelligence---that humans attach meaning to the symbols they manipulate while computers cannot--makes it impossible to create a computer that can think" (Easton, 1997, p. 210)
19 20 21
Please comment on either or both of these two views of the question or add your own. Also, feel free to embed questions that I or someone else can answer.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
* I am goning to go with Searle. Computers today are very advance in what processes they are able to speed up for us, but to have a computer actually think (artificial intelligence) does not seem possible. I mean look at the grammar/spell check on Word it can not even distinguish how different words with the same spelling could be wrong in a certain context.
29 30 31 32 33 34
*I like to keep things as simple as possible and agree with Searle as well. Although our technology has made huge advances in the past decade it seems merely impossible that a computer could be so advanced to have all the aspects necessary in order to actually think. On that same note it seems like computers are always "thinking" while the window sign is going around while downloading your next page. 1
Appendix 7
346 W03
week_one-topic_two 35 36
However, that doesn't change my opinion and I will be quite impressed if one day computers can actually think at the same level of humans.
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
* I also agree that computers will never be able to reach human intelligence. Human intelligence and the way in which we think includes many factors such as personality, opinions, morals, and a conscience, that I think a computer will never be able to have. Computers will continually become more complex and will be able to do much for us, however they will never be on the same level as humans and human intelligence. This whole idea seems very Hollywood and something shown in movies all the time. Can anyone think of any good examples of movies with "intelligent" computers?
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
* In response to the comment above, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a perfect example of a movie that uses "intelligent" computers. In it, a super computer named "Hal" is installed on a space ship which is on an important mission to Jupiter. Hal reasons that the astronauts on his ship, who he is supposed to support, are putting the mission in jeopardy so he decides to kill them. When it comes to the real possibilty of whether or not a computer will be able to think in the future, it depends on how one defines thought. In the first excerpt above, Hans Moravec estimates that robots will be able to reason between 2030 and 2040. Reasoning does not necessarily mean thought. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Hal reasons that the astronauts are putting the mission in jeopardy so he decides to kill them. The only reason that he commits these actions is because he was programmed in such a way that he put the mission's objective as top priority, not the lives of the astronauts. So if Hal is considered intelligent because he could reason based on the priorities given to him, then yes, machines will be able to think. If Hal is not considered intelligent because his reasoning was based on human input, then no, machines will not be able to think. Another movie that shows this concept well is iRobot. Other movies that involve artificial intelligence but don't explain it well are A.I. and the Terminator series. Based on these Hollywood examples, this discussion seems like it all boils down to a different topic question: Will machines ever take over the world? It looks like the only things that machines need are the ability to act which they already have and the ability to rank priorities, which they might have soon. In fact, I'm sure Professor Stager might be able to come up with some kind of machine that works with priorities, I can't think of any off the top of my head. So yes, machines may take over the world one day if some programmer does not fully assess the priorities
2
Appendix 7
347 W03
week_one-topic_two 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
he or she programs into them. On a side note, I don't like this wiki in comparison to a message board. Now I will have to check back to see if anyone comments whereas on a message board I get an e-mail telling me if someone has responded to me. NOTE: You can click "Subscribe to this page" on the left and you will receive an email if any changes are made.
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
I agree with your standpoint on this issue. The definition and interpretation of intelligence and reasoning is key for this discussion. There's been so many movies to display the idea that machines with artifical intelligence can take over the world, but it is not realistic. I don't think it will go further than a learning program because truly, computers don't have the capability to. Without emotion, compassion, and a sense of humanity, computers will never be like people and will never be able to surpass human intelligence. If technology ever does advance that far, humans would not be senseless enough to leave a device off of the computer that would deactivate it. So while I still believe that it will not get to that point, what it all comes down to is will a person ever create a machine that encompasses that much power? enough power to surpass human intelligence and take over the world? i doubt it because machince will never feel greed or be power hungry, so what would be the point of taking over the world?
98 99 100 101 102
I think that computers are not capable of having intelligence, at least not at this point in time. There is a major difference between human intelligence and computer intelligence and that is emotions. We can express tour feelings and computers can not. Another major difference is that computers need humans to program them and teach them how to think, they can not just think on their own they need us to help them and tell them what to think.
103 104 105 106 107 108 109
This topic reminds me of the movie Stealth, which was HORRIBLE! In this movie the navy created fighter jets that could fly themselves, so that they no longer needed a piolit. The hope was that they could save a few lives by not putting them in the middle of harms way. They would have the jets do the dangerous missions and not have to worry about losing lives during wars. The movie concluded with the jet turning against its creators and killing many innocent people. I know that this is only a movie, but I believe there is some truth to it. I don't think that computers are capable of being intelligent!
110 111 112 113 114
Computers will never have to capacity to think like a human being in the plain fact that they will never be able to feel. In the future they may invent computers that can reason and respond to faces and things of that nature, but computers will always lack the most important thing that makes humans truly human, and that is that we have emotions. No equation can make up for that fact.
3
Appendix 7
348 W03
week_one-topic_two 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
"GRRR..." , "$%^&!" and other reasons why some might feel THIS
WIKI IS RETARDED Correction! This wiki has 'special needs' Anyways... Now that I've gotten that out of the way and lost much, much time and what would have been useful, pertinent modification to this discussion, I will simply offer some points to consider: •
•
To argue the application of "intelligence", the term must be defined. Merriam Webster defines intelligence as "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations", "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria", "the act of understanding" and "the ability to perform computer functions." Notwithstanding the latter, can a machine not achieve all of these characterstics in due time, thereby becoming an "intelligent" being by definition? What about the main question proposed - Is it possible for a computer or machine to THINK? Thinking is defined officially as the ability "to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference." Again, is it not possible for a computer to have a preference, recognize danger or anticipate/predict an event?
Differentiating between thought (in general) and human thought is not only very important for this topic, but is often confused when the term "intelligence" is used in reference to computer systems, as mentioned above. A number of characteristics of intelligent thought apply to nonhumans. There are different levels of intelligence, and the ability to respond to the topic requires defining this level. Computer systems acheiving intelligence is very different from systems acheiving human intelligence. •
•
As humans, do we not also require some form of "programming"? I would submit that we certainly receive it from the very moment we are born...it's a necessity for an intelligent being. We can't completely learn on our own. We learn from the output of others. We even look for ways to learn "better"! After all, you don't know a language unless you are taught it. The same goes for math and even social skills. Even when we are older, we rely on others to teach us the things we do not know ourselves. Computers "learn" things in much the same way. The programming interface simply allows us to control how much or how little such a "being" starts off with and offers a highly efficient way to "teach" the computer large amounts of data in only a fraction of the time it would take a human to learn. Does the presence of emotion or lack of emotion truly define "intelligence" or the ability of a being to "think"? Is not emotion but a simple "sensor" by which we, as humans, analyze and measure the affects of our surroundings and physical contexts, effectively receiving, analyzing and outputing data? Do not computers also utilize sensors of varying types for similar purposes? Do we not see similar attributes in even the most basic computer technologies? There are computers which, when given the physical means, can express outputs resembling emotion based on inputs similar to what we, as humans, analyze and relay ourselves. Even if emotion is felt "inside", can a machine not recognize danger or express displeasure?
4
Appendix 7
349 W03
week_one-topic_two 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
•
Keep in mind, also, that the possibility of such an advanced, created "being" should not be viewed strictly in the knowledge and technology of today. Today's tools help make tomorrow's tools, which, in turn, help make the following day's tools even better and so on... Our generation should be the first to realize that prediction about the direction(s) technology will take in the future (even the near future) is simply a poor guess at best. Yesterday's rusty drillbits have paved the way for today's high-tech lasers. I'm certain it will only improve from here... ~ Masta' C
Duh, we all know that computers will be able to feel emotions in the year 2143 when David is built.
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
- I do not think that it will ever be able for a computer to actually think for itself. I think that with advances in technology it will almost seem as if computers can think for themselves but that will only be from the advance codes and programming that was used to put the computer together. They will never be able to think like a human could but technology might be able to produce a primitive type of thinking. A brain can never be created from parts though. I personally would never want computers to be able think. It would only cause more problems then it would be worth. When I think of computers being able to think, I automatically think to all those Hollywood movies, and some that have been discussed previously, and a scary image comes to my head. A lot of what I think comes from the movies that I have seen and I’m not sure if that is a fair judgment. Movies have a way of making everything more dramatic then it would be in real life. I still stick with supporting Searle and the argument against artificial intelligence.
184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194
As stated previosly, a computer who thinks on its own is nothing but a threat to humanity. Movies like Terminator and The Matrix ( I know their only fictional movies, but the topic is computers who can think) perfectly show what the negative affects of what could and may happen if computer start to out smart humans. Sure it will probably be possible for us to create a computer with the ability to think on its own, but not nearly the the degree that humans can. With this in mind it should be obvious that the negatives most definatly outweigh the positives in this discussion. Although I'm sure some day some idiot will make a smart computer which is only going to backfire and mess everything up.
195 196 197 198 199 200
I agree with the questions posed above by Masta' C (aka 'wikitarded') about what constitutes thought. I'm kinda mechanical in that I think it's got a lot to do with a series of synapses firing and learning how to fire in different sequences. I've seen very little on the way that the human brain works, but from what I've seen there's a great deal of potential for replicating the operations both with hardware and
5
Appendix 7
350 W03
week_one-topic_two 201 202 203 204 205 206
software. I'm sort-of a believer in the Michaelangelo school of thinking that if you can draw it out it will come to pass. It seems to me that if you substitute neurons for transistors and little circuitry dendrites. We've already got a lot of speculative stuff going on in this area. A simple google search brought up this site from the Imperial College, London on Neural Networks. Cheers mates! ~Econ1s1t
207 208 209 210
I personally hope that computers will never be able to think. It may be possible though. People 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago would have never thought possible some of the technology we have today.
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233
I agree with whoever said that a brain can never be created from parts. As much as people are saying that technically we could make an "intelligent" machine that "thinks," I don't know if I believe that any mix or organization of computer parts could really replicate a human brain. When the question was posed, I understood the question to mean more "thinking" as a human would, not just the definition of "thinking" or "intelligence" on a technicality. Yeah, it might be able to recognize danger, have a preference, or be programmed to respond to social cues and function like a human, but I do not think it is possible to create a computer that can really think, feel, understand, and comprehend like a human. I agree with the idea posed above that computer parts cannot replicate a human brain, but then I have to ask can man do what computers are capable of? and at the speed it is done? One of the questions the topic asked had to do with computer intelligence exceeding human intellegence, and I believe it has to some degree. No a computer is not capable of thinking, therefore exposing the difference between human and computer intellegence. But as far as advancing computer beyond the scope of human intelligence, well it is capable i think. How many people can honestly say they can do what a computer does. We can't thats why we invented them as a tool to aid us, their intellegence as far as information can far exceed us, but we have the ability to control it with our power of "thinking"/ human intellegence.
234 235 236 237 238 239 240
What happens if a computer is built that can think? That should be the question. If it could think, would it choose not to take orders from humans? What ever happened to the “Terminator”? Remember that movie where the machines begin to think for themselves, or even the “Matrix”, these machines grow humans in pods so they can live off the electricity created by the human body. In each of these movies the thinking computer turns on the creator because it now has a choice and chooses to exterminate or use the human for itself.
6
Appendix 7
351 W03
week_one-topic_two 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252
I like the idea of a non-thinking computer that executes commands and doesn’t think about it. The other thing is, will a thinking computer make things better in terms of progress? During the Enlightenment and after, the idea and philosophy of human progress through the use of reason led to the development of weapons used in WWI. These weapons that were introduced into the war helped to create carnage never before seen in human history and earning the name of “The Great War”. Following The Great War, 1918, an epidemic broke out in Spain called the “Spanish Flu” spreading world wide, and the progress of medicine and human reason was shaken by the loss of more human life than that which was lost during the war (at least 40 million people die within a year). Will a thinking computer make human life better? Maybe, but have humans made life better, or have they just changed how things are done, and life is still the same as it has been: hard and complex with the introduction of new tools.
253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264
Never say never... As written above, who thought we would be where we are technology-wise a few decades ago. Now, some would say what defines a human is it's ability to think, feel, and understand. In many ways, humans are programmed like computers. Think about it- how you were raised determines for the most part how you react and think to certain situations. The human mind, by the time it reaches five years old, has been programmed by its surroundings and this determines what will trigger an emotion or response for the remainder of their life (that is, unless they actively attempt to reverse this train of thought- i.e. an adult going into counseling for a traumatic event that happened when they were younger). Basically, what I'm trying to say in so many words, is that computers will have the ability to react and comprehend like a human, since humans are also programmed by their surroundings. Now, I don't think a computer can "feel," but this is not part of Moravec's argument- he argues that they will match human intelligence, and I do not think that we are far from that.
265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278
It is clear to see that computers already match certain aspects of human intellegence, take for example mathematics. A computer can compute a ellaborate complex equation way faster than humans can. Many humans can not even solve these complex problems without the aid of computers. However, the important thing to remember is that however complex the computer may seem, it was created by humans. Every procedure it undergoes was programmed by someone to make the computer do that. No matter how smart or life like the computer may seem it will never be able to be as intellegent as the human intellect. The computer is not showing intellegence it is simply running the programs it was told to run. I doubt computers years from now will be able to reboot itself after it crashes, and if it did, the only reason it would is because it was TOLD to, not because it simply wants to.
279 280 281 282
*I completely agree with the above comment. Everything a computer does is what a human has programmed it to. I computer can "think" the thoughts of its programmer, but it can never form its own individual ideas. But what is the difference between the question of
7
Appendix 7
352 W03
week_one-topic_two 283 284
whether a computer will be able to think and whether a computer will be able to FEEL??
285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
I will have to agree with the person a couple people up. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO INVENT A COMPUTER THAT THINKS? Well it would not surprise me that one day someone will be able to. Our world has come so far and there has been so many improvements that never seemed possible. For example, routine trips to space for anyone, being able to stop and rewind TV, or have all the resources of a regular computer in the palm of your hand. All this technology amazes me still, so I would have to say anything is possible. But yet if you have to program a computer and write the software for it how could it think on its own and have emotions. Wouldn't someone have to program it? Going back to why would someone want to do this. This idea seems like we would be setting our selves up for destruction. Nothing lasts forever, so maybe this is the path for human destruction. Just like the dinosaurs ruled the lands and then died off, well soon humans will die off and robots will rule the lands. Or maybe I have just seen too many movies.
300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307
There will definatly be some sort of AI computer program sooner or later. It is very hard to tell when or who will make the first prototype of AI computer but im puttin my money on CHina. They are so far ahead of the world in technology, it would take years for the US to catch up. IT will be a great achievment for mankind when AI is finally perfected, but it is also a very scary subject. To give computers the ability to think like us, would also give them the power to act like us; wether it be in a calm manner or completely irrational.
308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315
Computers being able to think could be a possibility although, could you imagine if they did. Maybe they would have thoughts like humans and the potential to have their own ideas but could you imagine if they did not have a conscience to allow them to realize what was right and wrong. Thought? what type of thought process are we talking about when making this computer. being able to think without having someone input ideas or knowing knowledge and other ideas. the definition of thought has to be laid out so that i can determine if i would want to create a computer that has these capabilities.
316 317 318 319 320
I agree with his statement. If the computer development keep today’s pace, we can make ideal computer that have almost same intelligence as human or exceed. Actually in Japan, the AI skills are dramatically developed in recent year, major companies, Toyota, Honda and Sony = Aibo, have making some
8
Appendix 7
353 W03
week_one-topic_two 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361
prototype robots that are installed high technological AI. However, even though we have technology to make ideal computer, we should not use that too much. If computer exceed human intelligence, it may not be controlled. Furthermore, some people said, at above, there are difference between human and computer intelligence = emotion.
362 363 364
As stated previosly, a computer who thinks on its own is nothing but a threat to humanity. Movies like Terminator and The Matrix ( I know their only fictional movies, but the topic is computers who can think)
The technology that exists today does not appear capable of creating a robot that can think. The ability to think is what seperates humans from animals, so if we are able to one day create a robot that can think, we would essentially be creating human life, without actually conceiving life in the traditional sense of the word. The robots that have been created today, at most, simulate thought. Searle's opinion is hard to criticize because he projects a timeline of what he predicts will happen without a foundation to support his argument. The real issue here is how we define "think." If defined in the way humans would think, then emotion, understanding, and intelligence (real not artificial) are all critical factors that make up this action. However, if thinking is defined as outlined by Searle as learning and reasoning then I think technology is already well on its way to making a robot that, in this sense, can think. I disagree with this definition of thinking however; in order to think it is pertinent to experience life, living and breathing, and computers will never be able to do this. Computers will never be able to combine critical thinking with reasoning and all of those other skills that are pre-programmed into their memory and then relate them to life experience. If they can do everything that humans can and more, then there would be no reason for us. We would be creating a global problem that would diminish the meaning of life and consequently in turn create an entirely new and superior race. Searle Computers will never be able to think. To think means to reflect upon or form an opinion about something. This is done without another person programming you to perform in these ways. Computers are set up by another person to act in certain ways; this is not considered actual thinking. Having a personal view or opinion on something is thinking, computers will never be a personal being capable of this. I remember hearing about a computer beating the best chess player in the world. But is the robot actually thinking? I believe that humans can make a computer to have the capacity to do certain calculations, but as said above, never have the feelings, emotions, and opinions that make a computer human. Thinking is the human capability to weigh what is in front of them or to ponder. Ethics, morals, and values are what make humans unique. A computer does not have these abilities... yet? Maybe one day a computer will be invented that can think, but with the logic that I have found, it has not yet been achieved. I am saying it all depends on how you interpret THINKING!
9
Appendix 7
354 W03
week_one-topic_two 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372
perfectly show what the negative affects of what could and may happen if computer start to out smart humans. Sure it will probably be possible for us to create a computer with the ability to think on its own, but not nearly the the degree that humans can. With this in mind it should be obvious that the negatives most definatly outweigh the positives in this discussion. Although I'm sure some day some idiot will make a smart computer which is only going to backfire and mess everything up.
373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407
I would have to agree with Searle. Computers are capable of doing a lot of things, but humans are the ones that have the ability to communicate clearly and reason. Computers cannot be relied on. Information can get erased, or someone may harm a computer and that may cause it to crash. And once all the information is put into a computer and it does all the work and if it crashes then there is no way to get all the information back. A human is able to have common sense and reason. If a person by himself or herself cannot think of something then that is why teams exist. Humans can collaborate with one another and computers cannot. Computers are programmed to act and do things a specific way. Lets just say that someone did invent a computer that is able to think more that a human and such. Well that computer did not just appear out of nowhere and decided that it was going to think. Someone had to create the computer and set its functions certain ways. The computer had to be created by someone. Someone had to of shaped the computer. This is where the uniqueness of the human being comes into play. Each person thinks and acts a certain way and we have the ability to change the way we think and act, which then shapes who we are. Humans have acquire sensory knowledge while computers don’t. There is no way that a computer that can think will be built, ever. Humans reason which makes us different, including different than animals. Cloning is as close as it will get to creating others who think, I mean creating, not procreating. Computers are a thing, a thing created by man, and man decides what it knows and how it uses that knowledge. It will be programmed to do virtually anything in the future, I'm sure, but it will never be able to program itself. I disagree because the mind of a computer is not that much different from a human. Think about how information is processed. The computer uses it's CPU, one transaction or item at a time. This may take less time then it takes to blink but it does happen quickly. A human does the same thing through the use of the brain. As technology improves (the speed of the chip) then computers will be able to get closer and closer to man in the ability to think. Look back on the last 25 years at companies like Apple, Microsoft and Intel. They have evolved and are continuing to produce superior and faster products. The future is an unknown but if the past is any indication,
10
Appendix 7
355 W03
week_one-topic_two 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452
the gap between human and computer intellegience and ability to think will close. I sutdied Searle last year in my Philosophy class. He had a very interesting argument about if a computer can think or not. This argument is called the Chinese box argument: There is a man inside a little room. The room is completely closed off and the only thing that the room has in it is a bunch of books on chinese symbols. So, the room functions like a computer where if people place a symbol into the Chinese box, the man will find the meaning and write the word on a piece of paper and send it out the other side of the box. In conclusion the Chinese box functions like a computer, where you give the box inputs and the box give back outputs. The question is then does the box as a whole know Chinese? I would say no b/c its not like the man inside knows Chinses or for that matter all he is doing is finding a symbol and writing down the word for the symbol. Being able to think to me is a matter of having sensation and perceiving the the senses into thought. A computer doesn't have senses or cannot perceive anything therefore it cannot think. In my oppinion, I believe that man will never create a computer that can think in the same manner as a human being. The problem is that man must create the computer and man does not understand his own nature well enough to replicate himself. Although we know what it is to be human, much of the emotion and feeling that goes on within us perplexes even ourselves. I also believe that there is a distinction between reasoning and logic and emotion and feeling. Feeling and emotion are inseperable aspects of "thinking." Man could code a believable program to immitate love, hate, or pride, but it would only be an immitation. Computers are things of logic and reasoning, but one could not explain in logic what it means feel love, or anger, therefore computers will never beable to explain these things because they cannot be expressed in logical terms. If the question is, will a computer ever be able to reason. The anwser is yes. In fact, computers someday will beable to reason better than humans. Just as computers surpassed humans at chess, a logic based game, computers will surpass man simply because they will be able to compute every possibility partaining to a given situation and give detailed presentages and stats to make the most logical decision.
11
Appendix 7
356 W03
week_one-topic_two 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479
+++As an avid video game player, I would have to say that it IS possible for a computer to be developed with artificial intelligence on par with or above human intelligence. I say this because of the level of sophistication that today’s software displays. In video games, the in-game AI can adapt to your characters movements and reason a correct attack or defense (for example) given the situation in order to make the game more difficult and fun. In games like halo we see the enemy form strategies to counter your movements, coordinating with other aliens to make a tactical assault on your team based on the situation. This is very primitive AI, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the AI that was available 5 years ago, and 5 years from now we will see even more complex and coordinated AI in video game. Now if that is any indicator, (and I believe it to be) there is no doubt that eventually a computer will be developed that think on the same or higher level than a human.
480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488
I agree with searle and his argument that artificial intelligence will be impossible in the future. He sums that the crucial difference between AI and human intelligence is that human attach meaning to the symbols they manipulate while computers cannot. We have so much movies old and new dealing with AI and the advantages and dangers it may bring. But I feel it’s a long shot to ever have AI that can reason. Humans are much more than nuts and bolts and jolts of information. We have a spirit that is far more complex than any that is tangible, mathematical or logical.
489 490 491 492 493 494
-----Yes, one day it will be possible to build a computer that can think. You'll probably be able to go down to frys (if you still dont order off the internet by then) and fill your cart with everything you'll need to build it too. My resoning can be summed up as "why not?" A thinking computer sounds sounds like something I'd want in the future - and if theres a profitable market it will be done sonner than Moravec thinks. But who knows, Hans Moravec's timeline may have
I really don't believe there will ever be a computer that can think. Computers can only become as advanced as humans can make them. And, I can't imagine that any human will ever be able to devise a computer that has emotions of the abililyt to reason. Computers are great at computing numbers, facts and figures but they can only respond to the information we input. Even computers that can talk will never be able to think. They will only be able to respond to certain phrases and sentances. And because humans can think of infinate sentances and phrase and word combinations, it would be impossible to program a computer to respond to every single one and have an authentic conversation like a human can. Computers doen't have the reasoning skills like humans have and that is why i agree that they will never be able to attatch meaning tot he symbols they manipulate.
12
Appendix 7
357 W03
week_one-topic_two 495 496 497
even called the dates. The technology will come with time...that technology will be applied beyond our current known capacity...breakthrough. Microsoft may already be working on the OS.
498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
Yes, I believe it to be possible. Over the course of human innovation, we have been able to create things that were never thought possible. As early as last century, humans never thought it possible that we would be able to go into outer space, let alone land on the moon and send spacecraft to Mars and beyond. What about flight? Nobody thought it would be possible for humans to fly and now flying is a commodity of every-day society. There is nothing we could put past human innovation, the sky's the limit. We're already on the right track, computers have become smarter and smarter by the day. Who's to say that years from now, they won't be sentient beings. Hasn't anyone ever seen the Matrix or Terminator 2? Behind the science-fiction is some fact.
511
13
Appendix 7
358 W04
week_two_topics 1 2
The topics this week come from the movie Revolution OS that we watched in class and from the May 2006 issue of Wired magazine.
3 4
Week Two-Topic One Is Open Source the Future of Software development?
5
Week Two-Topic Two RFID and Ethics?
6
1
Appendix 7
359 W05
week_two-topic_one 1
Is Open Source the Future of Software Development?
2 3 4 5 6 7
We observed the ideas of Open Source software development in the movie Revolution OS. Is it plausible that this model of software development can work? Should commercial software users embrace open source? Is it reasonable to build a company around open source software? Is the open source movement just a blip or is it here to stay?
8 9
In attempting to understand this you may wish to Google some of the players and/or review their websites. I have listed these below.
10
www.opensource.org
11
sourceforge.net
12
Bruce Perens
13
Richard Stallman
14
Eric Raymond
www.catb.org/~esr/
15
Linus Torvalds
www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/tolvalds/
perens.org www.stallman.org
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
As is often the case with important arguments, a zero-sum approach is taken by both sides. Many of the people on both sides of the argument take the position that someone must be on one side of the argument or the other: Either OSS will kill the likes of Microsoft, or "closed source" software producers will destroy the OSS movement. I'm of the opinion that both types of development can work well together. Is OSS a viable alternative to paid-for software? Absolutely. However, this does not mean that the OSS movement will remove the necessity of paid-for software completely.
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
I think Richard Stallman takes the wrong approach in pushing his doctrine of peace, love, and free software for everyone. He seems to take the position that people shouldn't be allowed to charge for their software at all. While someone could make economic arguments for and against this position, my biggest bone to pick with Stallman is his apparent hypocrisy. He claims that his motivations are for the "greater freedom" of mankind, but that freedom doesn't extend to those who want to charge for thier software, even if there are 1
Appendix 7
360 W05
week_two-topic_one 34 35
customers who are willing to pay for it. Stallman's "freedom" results in some people being more free than others.
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
If a customer is willing to pay for sofware, they will continue to do so. For example, if a company views they will earn a significant competitive advantage by building their own software and NOT sharing it with the world, it's in their best interest to do so. On the other hand, a company that is very cost-conscious, there might be savings with OSS. Both forms of software development can coexist happily, and I feel this is best for everyone. All of this ends up resulting in greater consumer choice, which gives consumers more product and pricing options for powering their business.
45 46 47 48
Yes, OSS will be a strong force in the future of software development. I think the competition between OSS and paid-for software will, in the long-run, end up making both alternatives better for consumers & businesses.
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
I think that the OSS is a good idea. I don't really know a whole lot about the topic and the specifics, but I think that it will be very helpful. I think that it is awesome that there are people out in this world who are doing things and making software for themselves, but sharing it with others for free. It seems like everyone is trying to make a quick buck and these prgrammers are being very generous and offering their products free of charge. From what I have heard, this software is made available to anyone who needs it for free or very low costs and that anyone can make changes and adjustments to the software, which makes fixing a problem on it much easier and quicker.
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
I don't really see why people would resist this technology other than that they people who sell their software. I could see why they would not want to use this technology, because then they can't make a profit anymore, but I think that once you get past this issue that OSS would be great to use. I think that OSS will be around for a long time and that it is just not a blip. I don't really see why it wouldn't work and why people could not use it in the businesses. There are a lot of benefits to OSS so I think that people will take advantage of it well into the future.
66 67 68 69
Contributing to an Open-Source project can be quite a rush, in the sense of being a part of something bigger than yourself. Especially when the project you're working on becomes widely used and very popular it can be a source of personal pride to have contributed. This feeling is pervasive, and will allow OSS to continue to grow over time. The big question is
2
Appendix 7
361 W05
week_two-topic_one 70 71
whether or not the business environment will (on the whole) accept OSS as a "trustable" alternative to paid-for software.
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
I think that Open Source projects are a great thing. The internet should be a place for people to speak and roam freely wherever they go. Just like wireless internet connection, the internet and all its components should be shared between everyone cost-free. I remember hearing someone say that eventually Los Angeles would be completely wireless. I think that its a great idea. The internet not only allows people to research anything they want and become more intellectual in certain subjects, but it also allows people to communicate without cellphones and other telecommunication devices that are extremely costly. The internet is not a physical being. It is open space filled with numbers that allow people to write, communicate, build and analyze with no limitations to what subjects are being searched. It is as common in homes as toilets and probably used more. OpenSourcing!WooooHooooo!
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113
What makes this software desirable to me is to know that Bill Gates will not be getting any of my cash. I am looking forward to the moment that I myself can switch over to an operating system that can be changed for my specific needs. If I owned a business I would definitely change to OS because of the unique qualities that such software could provide to me. I think that a commercial software user should have his options open when considering OS or nonOS. Like the previous entry above, I think that it is beneficial to have options when considering software purchases or the use of OS, Stallman makes me kind of nervous when he talks about all software being OS because he disregards other peoples freedom to sell their software for profit and their choice to close the source code. This is America and people have the right to choose how they want their products released. If someone feels more comfortable buying nonOS just because they want to feel like the software they purchased is backed by a name, let them. Me, personally, I would rather have some spare change and I plan to start changing out the software I do have currently for something that is OS. I do believe that this will be around and not just be a fad. I feel like open source was just as inevitable as the people's need for a democratic government. The fact of the matter is, no one likes to feel like they are being told what to do by the MAN. Open source software is a movement that allows people who feel like they have something to contribute, to do so. I think that that is so important because for the better good, this kind of a technological movement can fuel change being made by not just one source. Being able to monopolize and protect a software service or product, is simply a scan for money. The technological movement will never reach its full potential as long as people are fueled simply by making a profit. Technological for the advancement of human race will be what drives our kind to a working machine. * I think it may be hard to get some people involved in open source software. It will definetly not work for everyone, as some people are already satisfied with windows. Also, although I have no experience with open source software, it seems like it may be more difficult that the common operating system, and so only highly experienced 3
Appendix 7
362 W05
week_two-topic_one 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157
computer people will be able to enjoy it. I think if open source software can successfully involve commercial software users, they will have a much better chance of surviving. I agree that it will be hard to get some people involved with open source software, but I believe that open source software is here to stay, but also the existing non-open source software will be here to stay too. There are enough people that don't have the time, energy, or knowledge to change software to there own specific needs and the way it would run best for them. But there are also a number of people who constantly find things in there current software that they would love to be able to change to conform to their own specific needs. I believe that commercial software users should embrace opensource technology because it will provide a way to make software that works specifically for an organization and what that organization needs done. As long as there is a need and want for people to conform software to their individual needs open source software will be around. Yes, Open Source software is a good thing. It may be that this type of software is a not very user friendly, but that shouldn't be an issue. If these people want to take their time to make software that can make other programs and stuff better, why not allow that. From what I understood about the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, they are not necessarily free of charge, but free to change and redistribute. Open Source Software is no doubt something that could in the long run benefit society, given enough training and education on how to modify the software according to ones needs. I agree with the comment above that OSS may not be necessarily free of charge but instead free to change. I like how the software can be changed and redesigned to fit the user's specific needs. I don't really see many points on how OSS will not be a great benefit to society besides the possibility that softwae creators will not be making as much money as they once did, so the job has the potential of becoming undesireable. Other than this, I think the OSS movement is here to stay and we will definitely be seeing more of this in the future, granted that people do not take advantage of the many benefits that could arise from using such software.
In reality, there are inherent benefits to both open source software and your typical paid-for software. I don't see either disappearing or losing strength anytime soon. I strongly agree that the "little guys" of the software industry that boomed heavily in the '80s and '90s have suffered greatly due to the OSS movement. There is no doubt that small companies which relied on the production and development of single-focus software programs or small programs in multiple areas at once have felt the impact of this change. However, technology is moving so fast and rampantly, that it takes a force stronger than small-focus companies to keep up with the "big guys" of today. This is where the open-source movement comes in. It allows the input of a giant freelance entity to compete in areas dominated by single companies of equal or greater magnitude. Still, paid-for software will always have its niche in the computer economy, even in the off chance that open-sourcing becomes 4
Appendix 7
363 W05
week_two-topic_one 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
dominant. No number of programming, self-regulating conglomerates of individuals will ever be able to provide the benefits of paid-for software in the sense of "perks" paying customers receive- customer service, specific troubleshooting, reliable updating and the reassurance that the software developer themselves will be there for them. Businesses may very well never make the change as many systems rely on their software as a business backbone and one investment mistake here could mean the difference between monetary domination in a marketplace and their name on the header of a bankruptcy notice. Time is money to both the rich and poor and no matter how many supporters jump on the OSS bandwagon, there is a limit to what such informal entities can provide to its users and how well each software will (not can) be developed. How many versions of Linux have flooded the market place opting for domination in the "other" operating system category? The most successful versions have found that even they were unable to maintain a completely "free" product for long due to the similar needs and expectations of "non-paying" consumers, as they are nearly identical to those of paying customers. If I'm heading the development of an operating system to compete with Windows and Mac OS and you are a user of my free, reasonably popular, open-source operating system, you're likely to find that, unless I am able to charge you something for my product, you will be getting exactly what you "paid" for. If my band of mega-geeks get hit by a car tomorrow, chances are, you'll be stuck with a product null of the convenience you were expecting my product to offer. Even if my geeks and I simply realize that we can't pay the rent because we spent all of our time creating this operating system, charging you nothing for it, and now we have to go work real jobs to keep our refigerator running on electricity and an internet connection viable for you to send complaints to us, you'll be without updates or proper support to maintain your free software. As is the case with the all-mighty Linux, there will be access to the operating system's inner workings by the masses and you'll likely be able to find a variant of my product available somewhere else, but gone is the guarantee that it will be compliant and compatible with your system, that you won't have to suffer the inconvenience of installing a new operating system entirely and there is no way of knowing whether or not you'll be supported by the new software's developers for problems you may experience on either platform. Also worth noting is that, in place of the monetary competition we so despise in the current software marketplace is recognition competition in the OSS marketplace. Also, when half the Linux programmers wake up in the morning, they get dressed, throw on a polo shirt and head off to their jobs at Microsoft. When they get home, they continue their attempts to "stick it to the man". When I pay for Windows, I know what I'm getting and I know that, should I have a problem, there will be a fix 5
Appendix 7
364 W05
week_two-topic_one 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
available to me in a very short time if not right away. Larger corporations, such as Microsoft, don't suffer the sways and unexpected turns that face individuals on a daily basis. Sure, they have bigger concerns, but they also have bigger means with which to deal with them. If Microsoft is having a bad day, they fire the people causing it and hire new people in their place. If an earthquake topples Microsoft's building and my house at the same time, I'm probably going to be stuck picking up the rubble for months while Microsoft switches operations to their back-up plants and multiple locales in just minutes. Plus, I'll be fighting the insurance company while Microsoft builds a bigger and better plant in place of the old one. It can certainly be argued that the forces behind open-source software (i.e. "the people") will lead to userfriendly alterations and personalization that the large companies will never meet, but that convenience comes at a great price. I see a bright future for open-source software, but what happens when the free market of userdeveloped software overthrows "the man" and is left to stand on its own two feet? Will not another force rise to power? After all, Bill Gates was once just a shy programmer with a few good ideas and a desire to change the world through user-friendly software... ~ Masta' C The use of opens source software, as mentioned here, is not limited to simple operating systems. There are a lot of programs that are greatly benefiting from the "tweaking" that programmers can do with source code. The use of open source does provide alternatives to the dreaded Window's system (though I'd like to brazenly point out you find few Mac users trying to find alternatives to the Unix-based OS X ;-), but the real strength is in the ability to combine information resources, creativity and programming skills into a single program. An example of this is the wine program for Unix use of the open source has enabled friends of my buddy above, masta c, to use windows programs without the inconvenience of windows. Open source has provided the opportunity to create new experiences with old games, and new variations on old utilities and system programs. It is unlikely open source will ever replace the existing operating systems and major software companies, but it will provide an opportunity to stimulate further evolution in software and programming. Even after an extensive talk with Professor Stager after class, I'm still confused about this whole open source business. So there are free open source operating systems online but these suck unless your a programmer with extensive IT knowledge because they don't come with support. There are also other open source systems that are distributed by large companies that come with support. What a lot of people posting on here don't understand is that these systems are just as expensive as Windows. It seems as though these open source operating systems will continue to cater to a niche market for a few years. From what I understand, the only people interested in buying them are programmers that don't like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and businesses that use Apache software often. This can be compared to the niche market that Apple caters to 6
Appendix 7
365 W05
week_two-topic_one 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256
including people who are convinced Macs are better, people in film production and graphic designers.
257 258 259 260 261 262
To me open source systems seem to be catering merely to a very small market at the moment. In the long run there is a possibility that open source systems will be able to drive competiton for better products. At the moment most people seem to be fine with the use of windows or other systems, so there doesn't seem to be a major need for an open system. Yet in the long run the competition between open software and paid for software will be better for the consumer market.
263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
I totally agree with the person who wrote the first green comment. Open Source is similar to when file sharing of music got started. This software can definately work and has already made an impression, especially on the management at Microsoft. I don't like how Microsoft is a monopoly, so it is good that a company is trying to give them a run for their money. If open source proves to be competition, then Microsoft will have to keep creating better and updated versions of their software (agreeing with the comment above me). Microsoft is probably furious that some of the similar software that they produce is being given freely to those that would like it. I believe that Open Source is a good idea.
272 273 274 275 276
Like one of the people in the video said, there are jobs that could come out of Open Source. Those programmers that set up the system would get paid for their services, and also if a person's computer is having problems it could actually be proven successful. Like free music, this is definately something that is going to stick around! Sorry Microsoft...Open Source is here to stay!
277 278 279 280 281 282 283
Yes, OS will be the future of SF development When OS-code is released, any one can make customize software even though who is not original PG. When such PGs are make free( not = to no many) cooperation at development software on the web, the program variation building and version up will be developed dramatically. However, there are some problems that should be solved to develop this system such as to recognize GPL and BSD. That is the key of development for this new system on business market.
On another note, I hate how everyone demonizes Bill Gates. Yes it's true, Microsoft is probably guilty of breaking many anti-trust laws but other than that I don't see any problems with their business model. Bill Gates wants to copyright his own works and sell them. Big deal! Do you think musicians would ever come up with an open sourcestyle copyright? "Any one who likes my music can alter it and re-distribute it in any way that they like and put their name on it." NO! It's true open source isn't necessarily communism because it doesn't force people into accepting it but they shouldn't demonize others for not accepting it. Bill Gates has a product, he wants to sell it and copyright it, big deal! No other business would be able to exist with open-source style copyrights. AND I HATE THAT THIS WIKI SIGNS YOU OFF AFTER 10 MINUTES!
7
Appendix 7
366 W05
week_two-topic_one 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
NO, i do not believe open source is the new wave of the future or whatever you want to call it. Open source programs can be very cheap but they may not do exactly what it is they need to do. That just means you'll just have to hire someone to tweak it out so that it performs the task you need it to do. Next how reliable are these programs? The unfamiliarity of these programs will only cause the user more hardships. Businesses will have to hire just as many IT people as it would if it bought a microsoft product. Microsoft isn't to blame for anything, they are simply the best, monopoly or not. Personally i feel what you pay for is what you get. I would rather pay money to have a tailored program fitted to my every business need, then waste time going back and forth trying to figure out how to make this open source software work.
298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309
Without a doubt, as we have seen in recent years, the idea of open source is much more than just a blip, it is something that will continue to rapidly grow as a movement, but it is hard to say whether or not it will truly be the future of software development. While we have seen a number of companies decide to release their source code, as well as countless others that actually run much of their business on the principal open source operating system Linux, it has yet to truly catch on as a widespread form of actual software development in the business realm. Not that it can’t happen, but with the way most corporations think these days, it will be a surprising turn for them to even open their minds to the idea of open source. But it that were to happen, and they researched the possible benefits of it, they may find open source can actually have a large potential for profit.
310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325
There is no doubt that open source software development can work. As we saw in the movie, the model seems like it could work- with the different users building the program off each other. I don’t know that it would be a good idea for commercial software users to embrace open source. The whole point of commerce is to achieve economic gain. And with businesses relying on computer technology more and more, the more they need diversity to make profits. The whole point of open source is to allow users to modify computer programs, but you’d still be building off of the same program, and there’s only so much you can change about the program. And if businesses have essentially the same programs, there won’t be diversity and it will make it hard for any company to stand and make money. I guess open source software would be ideal for small businesses that are just starting out. At that point you’re just concerned with breaking even and getting a customer to buy your product or service. But once the companies grow, there would need to be a way to differentiate between different companies, especially if they are providing the same product or service. The open source movement is most likely here to stay. There’s always going to be some crazies out there with weird ticks trying to get people to move to open source. It’s already
8
Appendix 7
367 W05
week_two-topic_one 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
survived two decades. The question is whether or not the open source movement will be successful when compared to non-open source software. The chances of open source taking over companies like Microsoft are not likely. Obviously, the success of Microsoft has shown that people are willing to pay for their software. It’s part of the American way to feel the need to pay for something rather than take things from other people. Even if people aren’t willing to pay the money to buy software, I think they’re still more likely to steal the Microsoft software over adopting Linux just because of their respective reputations. When you steal Microsoft software, you actually feel like you have something of value because most people pay for that stuff. If you get something for free, you’re not really going to feel like it has value or even worth having at all, especially when most of the rest of the country/world is using something else that actually has a tangible value.
338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
I think OSS is a good idea. However, I agree with some of the comments that some people may not be open to the idea of OSS because people have become so used to companies like microsoft controlling the software company. I also agree that this may be used mostly within the technology industry because that community is going to be more accepting of the technology. I hope that the commercial community is going to be open to accepting OSS but it may be a long time before that happens. Although I am not extremely knowledgable about the technical aspects of OSS, it seems that OSS is much more vulnerable to malicious code such as viruses and trojens. If anyone can write code and change the source code in order to upgrade it or improve it, it seems like there would be much less control over security and safety since users would just download code off the internet to upgrade there software without truely knowing the source of the code. It would be difficult to know exactly where the updates are coming from or to know that the programmer's intentions are good. With commercial applications, one can download updates with more confidence, since the updates usually come straight from the company that created the software and are less likely to contain viruses and other malicious code. Another reason OSS may not be the wave of the future is because the ease of learning on OSS applications is much lower. One example is Linux, which is significantly more complicated to use than a commercial OS such as Microsoft. My father, a professional programmer, with many years of computer experience, still spent months learning exactly how set up a Linux server. He told me that he did not believe a normal, non computer person, would be able to 9
Appendix 7
368 W05
week_two-topic_one 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376
learn how to use Linux without alot time invested into learning how to use the OS. Althought it would be possible, most would rather use Windows and avoid the hassle of Linux. The real problem with OSS, in my opinion, is that the code is written by computer people, with there own specialized needs in mind, not the needs of a regular user. The software is much less user friendly, in comparison with Windows, and will have trouble ever catching on in mainstream unless the programmers make a concerted effort to make the applications more user friendly.
377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402
It seems like their is a lot of confusion as to what is open souce versus free software. Open source is usually used to describe free software or the redistribution of software. It seems like as the internet advances then more free sharing of software files will occur. Open source software will evolve into a more structured distribution system that doesn't allow making private modifications without publishing the changes. This is due to security reasons and also to make sure that the releases are accurate and that users are not on several different versions of the software that could have bugs or other problems. The goal of this entire movement is to create a situation where no financial or other advantage is to be realized by keeping software in a proprietary manner. Eventually, an entire library of software will be available in a central file or some type of massive data warehouse. Most people will eventaully be convinced that this all has to do with the experience of freedom. The knowledge of this concent of open source software is important for it to succeed. On the other hand, this is a country of capitalism and money making and for the most part the world is moving in that same direction. If a software developer or corporation can develop an application that will leapfrog the competition that it only seems logical that if their motive is money then they will make the product and access to the product as proprietary as possible. Is their another Bill Gates that is ten years old now but in a few years will develop such software? Doesn't the history of mankind demonstate both good and evil as well as greed and charity? The open source software movement will grow and florish in the future although the greed factor will always be present.
403 404 405 406 407 408
I think open source is a great idea. Just as the internet came to change the media's control over news and opinions, OS software can come to change the control of one software company in favor of the user. Commercial software users should embrace it because of the freedom allowed to add or change, which can signify a profit in a business environment. In response to the person who believes Bill
10
Appendix 7
369 W05
week_two-topic_one 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419
Gates has a right to copyright his software and sell it, I agree with this also. However, there should also exist the freedom to have his software and others to compete with him and let the people make their own choice. As for myself, I had no idea there were other software available. I had heard about them but did not think they were for regular user. Capitalism stresses free markets and competition, so I believe that everyone should be given a shot at putting forward their ideas in software and let the market decide. I have a feeling that OS will start to make an impact and be a strong competing force in the market place; this is not just a fluke, a revolution is coming.
420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449
Open source will probably continue in the future but we can’t say it will be the future of software development. It has a lot to offer to business people that regular software could never do. It will allow people to work together to collaborate their ideas done in their own time. This can help to fix bugs and bring about new ideas more quickly. The code will also be publicized which will make the company more liable for problems. Another things businesses like is they will have their chance at beating Microsoft. They are trying to side to beat the monopoly, or as this seems to downplay capitalism. It allows them to do this at a much cheaper cost than it would be to hire employees at regular rates to do the same work. This gives small companies ability to handle large jobs. It also allows people to bring direct feedback about what they feel will help the program. You are no longer stuck with all your programmers’ decisions. I don’t see this happening any time in the near future because of how successful Microsoft already is. People will continue to pay for it because it is working well for them and we will continue because there is no need for change. I think that both open source software and typical paid for software are both acceptable. If you want to use open-source and you know how to and it works for you- great. If you prefer paying for software and having the comfort of knowing that if something goes wrong, someone else can fix it- great. I think OSS will be used in the future, without a doubt...whether it is the "way of the future," I have no idea. I don't think it needs to be one or the other. I also liked the response a few paragraphs above that talked about musicians and how they wouldn't want to make music that can be changed and redistributed with someone else's name on it. It's not really relevant, but I like it. I think it is very plausible that OSS can work, is here to stay, and can be beneficial...but I think it is completely separate from software that you buy. It's just about preference and it's success isn't necessarily at the expense of paid-for software.
11
Appendix 7
370 W05
week_two-topic_one 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487
I think that it is a good idea to have open source software because it can be fixed and improved by someone else at no cost. By searching through the links above it seems like OS is just beginning and it is here to stay. There have already been quite a few successful software products so why should we not keep on making more. I also like the fact that this is a non-profit corporation. It seems like there is a very organized structure. There are ten things that have to be met in order for it to be and open system software. I think that in order for this innovative idea to have success in the corporate world, it has to of been around for quite some time. And it has to be reliable. It would be great to use some other form of software. The world needs a bit of a change. This one could go either way. It seems that there is room in the industry for both Private software as well as open source. In the spirit of competition it is a good thing to have open source software out there in order to push companies like Apple and Microsoft to make their products better. However without companies making money off their software there would be no way to fund the development of new technologies. Of course, this leads to people hacking the new software and then changing it to fit the hackers will, this then leads to more open source programs out there. Private companies and the Open source community live symbiotically using each other to drive technological progress. I do not think that open source is the futre of software development. Even though it would be nice, people are too concerned with making money and more importantly, receiving credit for their own ideas. I think open sourcing will continue to exist because there are some people like Stallman who strongly advocate open soucing. However, I don't think it is the "future" because, there are more people who would rather make money and become the next Bill Gate than then next Richard Stallman. Once someone invents software or improves upon existing software, he should be free to chose how he wants to share it. And the reality is, he is more likely to chose to make money off of it than give it away. So as much as we would like this person to freely share his software with us, the chances of it are unlikely. And would we even trust open source software? Many people believe in the phrase: you get what you pay for. And if the price for this software is $0, people might not trust the quality and chose to buy their software event though open source software is available.
12
Appendix 7
371 W06
week_two-topic_two 1
RFID and Ethics?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
In the current (May 2006) issue of Wired magazine, there is an article, "While You Were Reading This, Someone Ripped You Off". In this article, RFID (Radio-Frequency IDentification) chips are discussed. Also discussed is the ease in which someone with the correct technology can reprogram the chip or take the information. The author has a chip implanted in his arm. He then goes to a friend that obtains the "secured" chip's information within 10 minutes. These chips are touted as the best security, replacing key cards for secured areas, etc. However, as seen in the article, they are not as secure as they are described.
12
A few things to think about and discuss:
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Some people have these chips in their pets (including me) and there are those that believe that they should also be implanted in children. With the ease of obtaining the ids from these chips and possibly reprogramming them, it would be easy to "snatch" a child by changing its id on the chip so when the real parents try to identify the child via the chip, it would not match. Please consider the ethical, legal, moral, and common sense issues surrounding the implantation of chips, there use, and misuse.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
To plant a chip in a child or any type of being is completely ridiculous. Imagine if your parents planted an "Id" chip in you without your knowing. Me personally I would be a little upset, it is a complete invasion of someones privacy. Also you have to take into consideration though of who is the legal guardian of the being or pet. Think about the decisions your parents make for you when you are an infant or even a small child. These are things that you may have not wanted, but could have been the best decision for you at the time. I'm not saying that putting 'ID' chips in children is right, I just wanted to show maybe the perspective of an overprotective parent, who wants to ruin their child's life. There are other means of keeping an eye on your children without putting chips in people. I read a couple of these about the invasion of privacy, which I completely agree with. To have someones 'ID' chip # get out in the open could be devastating. There are already enough problems in this world with identity fraud and things that pertain to having information on people that shouldn't have come to the surface. I wouldn't even consider putting a chip in my pet, let alone my
1
Appendix 7
372 W06
week_two-topic_two 40 41 42 43 44
child. If I was constantly watching over my child, knowing every possible mistake or mishap to happen, my child would never grow and learn anything for themself. But now i am rambling, so to conclude this passage: 'ID' chips in any sort of being is outrageous and is inhumane.
45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Woa Woa Woa... why would anyone in their right mind want to plant a freaking "id" chip in their child or pet for that matter. I agree with the person under me that it would probably be illegal to invade in someone's privacy if the govt. or parents or whomever were trying to track a person. Also think of all the psychos out there who become obsessed with people.... now all they have to do is find out their ID on that person's chip and just track them that way..... i def think this is a bad idea on every level!
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Don't think for a minute you have no ability to be tracked, or any personal privacy. Anyone with a mobile phone can be located so long as the phone is on. No chip is required to be implanted (with or without your permission) - the permission granted in the above link is window dressing only. The chip you carry with you everywhere is all that's needed. While this does offer the "choice" to leave the phone at home and not be tracked (which can't be done with an implanted chip), let's be honest - no one leaves their phone a) off when it's not in use, or b) at home.
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Like many technologies today, here is another one that begs questions of security and ethics. RFID is a technology that will become more prevalent in our lives as we move to a wireless society. There are great efficiencies that can be achieved through its use, however, the technology may not be as secure as it needs to be at this time. Ethically, if willing, I dont see a problem with the concept of a chip on my person. As the person above noted, this is already a part of today's lifestyle. In fact, an implanted cell phone would keep me from losing it! Legally, the government should enact measures to curtail potential security theats. The California State Senate SB1834 looked at potential problems and many states are following suite. RFID looks to be a technology with a huge impact on our lives in the future. We should accept it and work out the kinks on the road.
75 76 77 78
Implanting a chip into a pet is one thing, implanting it into a human is another. I think that it is morally wrong to implant RFIDs into humans. There is a FINE line between what is ethical and what is not. There are too many
2
Appendix 7
373 W06
week_two-topic_two 79 80 81 82 83 84
problems that could arise from theses devices that they outweigh the benefits. On a legal perspective, I think tracking people with a chip without their permission is illegal. People should be notified if there are tracking devices in their merchandise before they purchase the items.
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102
I do not support the idea of putting any sort of tracking device into any human being. Not only is the person who has the chip in numerous types of danger, but also they people close the him/her could be found just as easily by tracking the chip. In the case of pets and animal I dont think that it's nearly as bad because many pets get lost and it would be a simple and easy way to for the owner to track it down. Back to humans though, nothing stops a hacker who wants anything from someone else from changing or messing with the ID chip in the person. It's just another way to steal someone's identity, like a social security number, and everyone knows thats already a large enough problem. I really don't see any real benifits that outweigh any of these negatives. There is also the issue of the government having access to the ID chips, that would be way too much for the government to have about an individual. With what everyone else has said I have no clue why someone would want one implanted into themselves unless they are always out in the wild alone or mountain climbers, but even then most of them carry devices that will help others find them.
103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114
Let's broaden our horizons and contemplate the opportunities presented to us through technology. The advancement of technology does not need to be an invasion of our privacy but possibly on those in society that give us these rights through criminal acts. Specifically what I'm referring to is... let's put the ID chips in criminals and child molestors. This way, when a child goes missing, we can find him/her through finding the criminal that is responsible for the crime. I know it's a little optimistic but let's use this technology positively. When people commit certain crimes or possibly have a record with enough crimes, we should be entitled to force them to give up their privacy rights, rather than that of innocent indivduals.
115 116 117 118
LET THE CRIMINALS LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY SO THAT WE CAN INCREASE OUR SECURITY WHILST UTILIZING TECHNOLOGY IN ITS BEST ARENA... 3
Appendix 7
374 W06
week_two-topic_two 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134
To plant a "Chip" into a child is a bit to radical for our generation to exactly comprehend. However, as in pets, this chip does not necessarily need to be implanted in children. This chip can be used for people who come from different backgrounds. For instance, the chip could be more useful for people who may easily become lost and be very difficult to find, like hikers and any other adventurer who may have an urge to go out and discover. This could also be a very startegic entity for the United States Armed Forces. With these chips and future improvements, military strategist would be able to determine their soldier count, position and etc. on the battle field. This may also be a tool that would be able to save lives as they would be easily spotted if they were in a danger zone and be redirected via headsets. More so this chip would be increadibly beneficial to providing a safer society for all of us to enjoy. With chips inplanted into criminals, we would have an added layer of security against these social degenerates. Such sick criminals include sex offenders, pedophyles, and other repeat offenders who are a danger to society as a whole and not to metion a danger to our children.
135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151
I full agree with the thoughts above. I think that it is one thing to place these chips in animal to use as simple tracking devices in case they run away, but it is a different story with humans. I think that there are too many issues today with identity theft to place all of our confidencial information on a chip. I know personally that I would not want a chip implanted in my arm. I think that the people who claim that this is a secure chip are underestimating the intelligence of criminals now days. I think that if people are willing to do this, that there will be many cases in court about people stealing other people's identity and information. From a moral and ethical stand point, I dont think that it is right to place these chips in children because they are not getting a say in whether or not they want them. This chip just doesnt seem to me to be a good idea. I think that it would be easier for criminals to take children and get away with it. I also think that it will be easier for identity theft to occur. I think that they very little benefits that these chips will provide will be heavily out weighed by the many consequences. This chip just goes against all common sense!
152 153 154 155 156
I, personally, have a problem with chips that can store my personal information. Consider the fact that these chips emit a radio frequency from them, then take into account what will be stored on these chips, and then throw the criminal mind into the equation and you now have an environment where your personal privacy is no longer relevant. If you want to put them in
4
Appendix 7
375 W06
week_two-topic_two 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196
pets, go for it, I don’t have a problem with this, but to have a chip that is unique to a person, and contains medical records, financial information, and dmv records would, in my opinion, be like walking around naked. I read a news article that listed in detail how Wal-mart would use these chips in their stores for marketing products to customers while they shopped. When products passed a scanner, other products relating to the intended purchase would be announced to the shopper. For instance, if I was purchasing a razor an announcement reminding me to get shaving cream would be triggered when I passed in front of a scanner. HP was supposed to put them in their printers. Does this mean that my name will be attached to this printer when I purchase it? Will it be able to track and send the documents printed from it via RFID and a unique signature left by the printer on my documents? Applied Digital Solutions produces the Verichip that is an implant the size of a grain of sand. This chip was tested in Spain at a night club that was promoting the use of RFID for their VIP program. If implanted, the customer could access the club without standing in line and make purchases with the chip like a debit card. At the same time, Digital Angel Corporation has been in the process of integrating these chips with GPS to offer a tracking chip that could pinpoint an animal’s location through the use of satellite technology. Think about that. Now I can get chipped and someone can follow me around through a service offered online. It would be like having my own personal “Big Brother” following me around and making sure I was were I was supposed to be. What happens when these chips become necessary for citizenship? Now they are compulsory, but with the issue of “The War on Terrorism” still lurking around, could these technologies be forced upon our society or could they become a necessity in light of another 911? When 911 happened, the American people saw the need to avenge such an act, and we declared war on terrorists and the regimes that coveted such people or sponsored it themselves. We then invaded Afghanistan and followed this up with the invasion of Iraq. If another attack occurred, would the American people seek such a device; and would they have them implanted willingly? Just something to sleep on. I find it incredibly sad that people are that irresponsible to have to put a chip in their child in order to find them or see where they are. As many people have mentioned earlier, I think it is causing more harm than good. Just think how bad a parent would feel when having the chip put in their child and then still losing it once its identity is changed. Basically it isn't solving anything. As far as ethics and morals go, there are already enough ways to be unethical or dishonest, therefore why add another reason for these
5
Appendix 7
376 W06
week_two-topic_two 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
crazy people to do things such as stealing children. Obviously those that are caught stealing identities or messing with these chips should be charged because it is invading people's privacy and I don't see how anyone could argue that they weren't doing any harm while commiting this act. I did find one positive article that had to do with education. Two students developed software that uses RFID chips imbedded into toys to help teach children. The chips are read by a scanner attached to a computer. This allows the computer and the toy to talk to one another. The toy is then able to be programmed with games that are interactive and provide a learning process like that of a classroom: “Trivia Game, Scavenger Hunt, Fill in the Blanks, Category Quest, etc.”. This software is called Merlin’s Magical Castle (MMC). I agree with the statements made above. One point that I think is really good is someone brought up the problems we have with identity theft right now. Could you imagine what it would be like if we all had chips like that in us. It’s a scary thought. I was just studying in one of my other classes about how many problems they used to have with hotel key cards. They would program tons of information on those cards when they first came out. The hotel would put the name of the person staying there, their room number, their credit card information, and their home address. Then workers could get a hold of the card, slide it through one of their machines and get all the guests information. Now the hotels have changed that, but I immediately thought of that when I read this question. It’s a very scary thought to be so vulnerable to other people. I do not think that is ethical to put chips into human beings. It’s one thing to put them in animals and I myself have one in my dog, but my dog doesn’t have credit cards and a social security number to protect either. When you start putting those into humans it is crossing the line. Since other people can change information I don’t even see why people are still considering doing it. I don’t like the idea of people being able to track me anywhere. I feel like I already have a tracking device with my cell phone, but at least I can turn that off or not answer it. I am very much against the idea of implanting chips into human beings. I see the point that everyone is trying to make against the implanted chips. The idea does seem dangerous and risky because in some way it violates an individuals personal space, but at the same time these chips could be very useful for society and in time could improve the conditions of our already corrupt situation. If the software is made glitch-free (which it would have to be in order for any one to trust it) we would not have to worry about issues like chaging the identity on the chip. In this case, the chip could act as a solution to identity fraud, secure building access, computer access, storage of medical records, anti-kidnapping initiatives and a variety of law-enforcement applications. It would decrease criminal and immigration activity and also, in a way, keep order over society in a individualistic type of way. If we implemented a society standard that in order to make any transaction (depositing money, buying groceries, going to school, anything) we would need a chip, then societies conditions would improve immensly. People would not be able to steal identities, immigrants would not be able to function in the U.S. because they would not have a chip, and people would not have to worry about 6
Appendix 7
377 W06
week_two-topic_two 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
losing paper work like medical records and even money. The risks that may come up are black markets and actuall stealing the chips from a persons body, but we could safe gaurd that too. If they are government made and regulated, we could develop measures that would make it hard to reproduce the chips (like we do with government printed money). Also, if a person wanted to physically remove the chip from a person we could safe gaurd that by making sure the chip is activated only by that specific persons DNA. While these taks would be difficult to fulfill, in the long run society would improve. Sorry but I don't think that this could ever be "glitch-free" but even a glitch-free chip could be disasterous. For instance if you had an abusive spouse and tried to change your identy and go into hiding, but couldn't because you had this chip implanted in you. And it is impossible to change the information on this chip. Your spouse could easily track you down and you might never be able to escape. ok back to the issue about implanting your child with a chip... This is a very bad idea. First of all parents shouldn't need a chip to keep track of thier kids. And parents have to remember that one day their kids will be adults. Once kids the kids become adults, they won't want their parents to be able to track them down and invade their privacy. Furthermore, the parents that are crazy enough to implant thier kid with a chip are probably the ones that are more likely to invade thier kid's privacy. I think that when we as a society turn to AI as a source for babysitting or teaching children, we are basically killing off the purpose of parenting. As soon as technology reaches the point where computers can think for themselves, we slowly start to seperate ourselves from human interaction. However, I think that putting chips in certain human bodies is a great idea. If you have killers and rapists with chips implanted in their skin you could tell where they are at any time. The future definatly holds unlimited possibilities for technology like this. * I think that until this technology has been further improved the idea can not even be considered. If the chip is so easy to break into then clearly, no benefits will come out of it at this time, and any possible risks will be endured for nothing. It is hard to compare and contrast the positive and negative elements, as those elements are still being discovered and the chip itself is still being worked out. Okay so I just wrote so much and got logged out before I could submit my response so I'm gonna try to remember most of what I wrote down. I am strongly against implanting a RFID into humans. I am not sure if anyone is familiar with the Bible but does this sound like it's getting closer to the mark of the beast to anyone? What else is next and how far are we going to let technology take over our lives, or even worse- our identities? If we let this happen then it won't be long till we have a chip that contains all our information: identity, address, birthday, social security number, credit card information etc. Picture paying for your groceries by the scan 7
Appendix 7
378 W06
week_two-topic_two 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
of your arm... i mean seriously how much further are we going to take this!? We do not need a chip implanted in our bodies for proper identification- we already have fingerprints taken for this. At least our fingerprints cannot be tampered with againt our will... the thought of how easy it would be for a hacker who is technologically advanced enough to change our identity through our "chip" is so scary. Even if the technological glitches in the system were completely fixed, as someone above compared to the hotel key cards, i still feel that this is ethically wrong. And to go as far as to justify this because we do it with our dogs-- since when are we comparing dogs and humans?? I do admit that my dog has one of these chips implanted in her, however this is a completely different scenario. Dogs do not have fingerprints taken at birth to match up through forensics, and they do not have an identity to steal. By allowing this we are only further diminishing our identities to mere numbers and figures. By implementing this we are just opening the door for hackers and leaving it wide open to steal our identities. We need to open up our eyes and instead start closing the doors. Well, when you first read about this idea it is easy to be disgusted with it, and feel it is ethically wrong. It is also a little creepy to think about having an object like that inserted into your body. It seems unhealthly and it seems that your body would want to reject such an object. It reminded me of Bourne Identity . But thinking of it for the long run, if you put them in children, it will help track them if they get abducted or get lost. The argument that they can easily change the information so it will not match the parent's chip when the child is found, is a ridiculous argument. The parent of the child can easily be identified through DNA, or even just through fingerprints. Having it inserted in any human to store personal information is ridiculous, we are not robots. The whole Walmart thing that was talked about above is really, really weird and unethical. I believe that we shouldn’t be scared of these chips. These same exact things were discussed when we went to transfer our information over to electronic sources, and then when we went to transfer them to the internet. The fact is that most of the people need to be able to see a profit in what they are doing. A hacker steals your codes to your office so he can get in, not to mess you over, but why would he just change the ones in your arm? Hackers are out for themselves and their agenda, not to mess you over. Although there is some to fear there is also back up. If you have a chip in your child you also have SS cards, and id, and thousands of friends to vouch that that is your child, so a hacker can’t just take your kid, change some code and say it is his, and it is. Cause if you think about it in todays society the most powerful evidence is a witness anyways. Like I said before this sounds like the same fear that was going through everyone when we were switching to the internet and e-commerce, and even though we do have some instances of fraud, it is not nearly has bad as anyone thought it would be.
8
Appendix 7
379 W06
week_two-topic_two 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373
It is only a matter of time before things such as chips start making there way into the everyday live's of humans. Though there appears to be many possibilities with the use of these chips, something about it just feels wrong. Putting a chip into a pet or a toy is one thing, but placing them into other human beings seems to cross a line. I believe that most people would agree that having a chip that has all of our information on it is dangerous and Big Brother-like. With this would come tons of problems with people attempting to hack into other people's chips and all sorts of other criminal activity. As our technologly advances, we need to find a common ground of what is cutting edge and helpful, and what is invading privacy. I believe that chips in either humans or animials is unethical and immoral. We are not computers that need chips. For an animal, you can put a chip in the collar. For a human, if someone wants to get your personal information they will do so no matter where you store it. Identity theft is not as prominent because people are more aware of what could happen. Chips aren't even an option when it comes to anything living. I only approve of chips going into objects of value, for if they could get lost. How much would it be for a chip anyway? If they are high cost, then it is definately not worth it. I believe computer chips would be okay if they were used just for tracking purposes, such as a lowjack chip. A small chip being placed in an animal or when a human who chooses to get it installed isn't unethical or immoral. Dogs getting neutered or spaded is a far worse thing then getting a tiny chip implanted. Its like like this animal or person has a huge blinking thing sticking out of their body. Sure there are grey areas such as people being able to know where every one with a chip is at any given time, so yes there are ethical questions surrounding this idea. But chips with personal information is a bad idea, its only a matter of time that people start stealing everyones information and start changing it. Its easy for them to do it today past firewalls and other security programs, i can only imagine how easy it will be for them to hack into information that is being sent across frequencies. Hackers will be stealing and changing information while sitting down at starbucks watching people walk by. I think it less morality to implant RFID to human. RFID makes a lot of benefit to society, for example, supply chain MGMT, history, material or presence control, and contributing sensor network. However, it contains more problems for protection of privacy than security and gives critical social problem to society. For example, RFID tags make easy to search the lost article, but, when individual carry RFID, it has risk to release individuals’ information of behavior to the third party.
On May 2nd IBM announced a new "Retail-Safe" RFID chip.
9
Appendix 7
380 W06
week_two-topic_two
375
Big Brother Is Watching You....
376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397
Okay, yea people hacking into the system with RFID or blackmarket stuff is bad... Yes this information can be stolen and privacy can be violated. Am I the only one who is worried about the GOVERNMENT having this information? They can already find out everything, but look where we are today: our basic liberities are constantly being violated in the name of "combatting terrorism." It is now ok for the government to tap into phone conversations, go through records, check what books you've purchased, without announcing a motive, except that they are suspicious. Personally, I don't want Bushy and everyone to know where I am at all times, my medical conditions, etc. While hackers pose a serious threat to this technology, I'm most worried about corrupt government officials who can get away with obtaining and using this information. For example: You have senator so-and-so who is supported by Blue Cross Insurance. He can obtain documents that who your medical reports, essentially sell them to the insurance people. Not too ethical, eh? RFID is crap and there's really no point. We've gone this far without it. Why now?
398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406
The person who posted the above comment has got the right idea. Citizens of any nation have the most to fear from their own governments, not the citizens in that government. Look at the most severe tragedies in human history; the one thing they have in common is the fact that the violence and oppression originated with the citizen's native government. Communists in China and Soviet Union, Nazis in Germany, Serbians & ethnic Albanians, the list goes on and on. A person getting their identity stolen is the least of his or her concerns. We need to be mindful that every oppressive government in history was put into power by people who thought "our government would never do that." No one wanted to believe Stalin slaughtered millions of people, because it would imply something wrong with their culture and way of life.
407 408 409
Be carefule when you assume "your government" would never use something like RFID (or the Patriot Act or whatever) to control its citizens. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it never will.
374
10
Appendix 7
381 W06
week_two-topic_two 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421
I feel that RFID would not be a terrible idea in the future when everything is figured out a bit more. Having something foriegn implanted into someones body is just gross and weird (although breast implants are socially acceptible). Nobody wants such things in their body unless your a freak. It all sounds like a good idea now but more thought has to be attempted before we have everyone born get the RFID. Maybe a chip that clips on a child or pets coller would be a better idea. The chips need to be designed to where nobody can hack into the data and find certain people. This trackin device sounds good for prisoners or people that just got out of jail or even better people in the Military would be even better. A lot of soldiers during many of the wars we have fought in have never been found. The RFID sounds like a great idea and the Military should think about it.
422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453
One of my first thoughts upon reading the question was ‘are there really that many children being claimed by more that one set of parents?’ I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a situation where a child was taken away for his/her real parents because someone else was saying he/she is their biological child. I don’t know..maybe I’m just oblivious. But even if this was happening all the time in America, it seems kind of silly to resort to computer chips being implanted into the kid. Aren’t there birth certificates and DNA tests to deal with situations like this? Maybe it would be a little more difficult for a father to prove his fatherhood of the child in a case like that, but usually it came out of the mom’s body and there’s got to records and things to prove that the kid really did grow inside her. Even if the child was adopted, there’s going to be records at the orphanage about who the parents really are. I don’t think it’s very likely that something like this child-fraud thing would really happen and be a legitimate case needing a lengthy investigation, but I do think that RFID chips could be useful in other situations. I think it is perfectly ethical to implant one of these chips into your pet. In fact, I don’t see any situations in which that could be a bad thing, unless it’s going to give the puppy cancer or something. I also think that implanting this chip inside humans could be a positive thing- whether or not that would be a good thing is dependent on the purpose of doing so. I guess it would be kind of cool to use the chip as a credit card. Then you could just wave your hand around (like the pay pass things they have a Shell) and you wouldn’t have to go to the trouble of getting out cash or an actual credit card to make purchases, since that is obviously such a strenuous task. It would be convenient but pointless and it would make Americans look even lazier. If the chip was used as a sort of GPS system that could make the chip useful. Then in our hypothetical child abduction case, you could just use that to find the kid. The RFID chip also has potential in the medical field as well. I think I heard something about people trying to develop a chip like this that contains medical records so that if a person is taken to a hospital but isn’t able to tell doctors about his/her allergies or medical records they could just scan the chip and voila. I think that would be very beneficial for both the patients and doctors that face those sorts of situations when the doctors cannot communicate with the patients and there isn’t anyone around to let the doctors know about the patient’s history.
11
Appendix 7
382 W06
week_two-topic_two 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479
RFID technology and the moral and enthic issues involved obviously have several plus and minus factors. Isn't the answer really just a matter of the weight given to each and then a determination made as to which is the better course based on the given situation? Is the RFID microchipping in human beings the invasion of personal privacy? Well, yes and no. In the case of a convicted felon who needs to be tracked because he could cause a serious crime my answer is no. In the case of an unknowing person I say yes. We as humans at this particular point in history in the United States probably have more personal privacy than any other living organism on the planet. This is because of our political structure and because we are supposed to make rational decisions. Our personal being and individuality more or less sets us apart from our humans and the rest of the living animals on our planet. If there is a sysyem that is created where everyone's information can be known and used by other people then we would be stripped away as humans from our identity and personal individuality as it exists today. A ruthless government could have an opportunity to monitor all of the people in it's country and become even more extreme than communism. RFID microchipping would radically change the court system. This is because it would take the guess work out of who was where and when. An exact location of people involved in a court case at certain times would be used to determine guilt or innocence. I wonder if harden criminals would find a way to trick this technology. The current method of the use of a courtroom would become obsolete. It seems like a lot of this technology is available today and could be implemented. If you look at what Wal-Mart and the United States Military are doing it seems possible that RFID will be rolled out in several other applications. In summary, we need to approach this technology with a great deal of causion and be very careful of security and the constitution of the united states. The government should consider some regulations of developers in this area as the technology progresses. I can't think of anything that is more essential than personal freedom and having are own identity.
480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487
My first thought when reading this question was "Are u serious?" Not that I haven't heard about the technological advancements reguarding chips and human sensors, Im just boggled that people actually think it is a good idea to put a electronic chip in your body. First off I think of the health of the human being. Could these chips cause defects in humans? The thought of people being able to obtain my personal records is a scary thought and quite frankly I never want to see it happen. Somone above me said it best "RFID is crap and there's really no point. " We've gone this far without it. Why now?.....
488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496
Okay, cats, dogs, cows, but humans? I don't think so, and I don't care how many benefits, those who propose these chips, try to brainwash us into believing they have. Of course it is unethical to implant these chips in human beings and animals as well, for that matter. Yes, it's reminiscent of the mark of the beast. RFID chips can mean a lot of trouble for society; there are so many misuses this can be associated with. The one that comes to mind is the one having to do with the information we would be carrying. Currently criminals have to search, steal, or dig through garbage to get our information. There is some kind of work involved. However, an RFID chip 12
Appendix 7
383 W06
week_two-topic_two 497 498 499 500 501 502
would mean they have no more searching to do, just grab a person and it's a sure thing. We would be walking advertisement for criminals. What if some maniac decides to kidnap you just so that he can scan you through the ATM? What if they kidnap you in order to switch chips with you? These RFID chips are ridiculous! I hope, we as a society, have a little more common sense than to be treated like things rather than human beings.
503
This idea scares me. I think it is a complete invasion of privacy and I think that placing RFID chips in humans is taking science and technology too far. Placing the chips in animals is a bit too far as well, in my opinion, but it is not as crazy as puting them in humans. Yes, good things can come from RFID chips in humans but there is also so much bad that can come from it and I do not trust society as a whole to keep everything just and moral. Society just doesn't work that way. That is common sense. Also, when thinking about how this might relate to the government and other powerful organizations and groups- they have every opportunity to abuse the power they have and take advantage of citizens- and they do, so why would we give them another opportunity to do so? I agree with whoever said that we have gone far enough without it. Why now?
504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534
To go to the extent of planting a chip on a child is too extreme. This idea to me seems ridiculous. What is society turning into? Are humans just some type ordinary type of species? I understand that the chip would be used as identification purposes, but there is no use for the chip if someone can hack into your chip and change your identity. The chip is useless if your identity could be changed. It is absurd to place a chip inside a child for identification purposes. Especially when the information of the person could easily be changed. Lets just say that a child was lost and the chip was used to identify whom she/ he was. Lets just say that the information was changed. Children are not going to be able to defend themselves because they are minors. This can lead into serious legal issues. Especially since there is a great chance that someone changed the information of your identity. And if this chip was put into place, what would it be used for. Would we have to rely on the chip to be able to identify ourselves? Would written documents not exist anymore? This case brings up a lot of questions that at the moment cannot be answered. But, my opinion is that this idea is absurd and untrustworthy.
This issue sounds like a serious problem. But, like every other problem that is associated with advancing technology it is extremely hard to regulate. It seems to relate to the same problem as human clones. You could create a human clone and use it for organs, but that hardly seems ethical. The same 13
Appendix 7
384 W06
week_two-topic_two 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577
principal applies to implementing RFID chips into humans. It would seem like you are detaching that person from reality. As humans we constantly want more, always seeking something bigger and better. But really it is the same quest as all the other animals...survival. It seems as if RFID chips would have more negative impact than good, but there is no controlling the ever rolling ball of technology. New technologies that become available constantly scare us, only because we don't understand them. We have constitutional rights that afford us privacy from the government, but these rights may not apply to merchants. Unfortunately most of us have used RFID chips knowingly and many have been part of marketing schemes that track items or people with this new technology. Most RFID chips use passive technology so that it does not require batteries and can make the chips quite small, almost unnoticeable. The real question is will people become immune to idea of loss of privacy or individuality when this technology becomes mainstream. I think so. People have had GPS systems in their cell phones for a couple of years now, and I have not seen anyone giving up on cell phone communication. It is unbelievable how advanced technology is these days. Who would have ever thought that it would be possible to develop something with the capabilities a radio frequency tag possesses? I feel that an RFID can bring a lot of benefits to the table in terms of business. For example manufacturing companies would use the RFID to track every item that is being manufactured during the manufacturing process. The Device would also benefit retail/merchandising companies, because the RFID would be able to pin-point the location of every piece of merchandise in the store. Therefore, allowing the store to reduce SHRINK and maximize sale, among other things. Although there are a lot of positive aspects of that go along with the RFID, I fear that the negatives far outweigh these positives. For example, I am not sure that when I walk into a store I want the employees to know what size pants or shoes I wear. I also do not think its anyone’s business what my profession is, my marital status, or how many kids I have. If the general public were to start having RFIDs installed in them then their right to keep personal information from being disclosed could or will be jeopardized. These devices could take Identity theft to the next level. This is a risk that I and others would not be willing to take. I think having the chips put in children without their consent is morally wrong. On the other hand, there can be things it can be useful for in humans. Like if someone is fearful they are being watched already and are concerned and want to have a monitor on their whereabouts then this chip would be suitable for them. It has worked wonderfully for animals so I am sure it would work well with humans also. The fact that other people can 14
Appendix 7
385 W06
week_two-topic_two 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615
hack in and change the information is just something people are freaking out about. I mean, yes it can happen, but it is hyped up more then it should be, because the actual instances of this happening are few.
People wearing implanted chips in their head sounds a bit ridiculous. Yet this does not mean that it isnt a good idea. The Wright brothers said "Hey lets build a machine that can fly in the air and have no regard for gravity", but I guess that worked out pretty good huh? The fact of the matter is that there are problems with this idea. This idea, put to good use I beleive will be very beneficial. Yet, certain precautions need to be addressed first. How long was it after the Wright Brothers before you actually saw a commercial air liner making money and the idea of flight trully being utilized. I would not want to give up on this idea but as far as actually implanting them in people's heads... we may not ever be able to make this safe enough. As the producers of these chips get smarter so will their competitors. -Chip Lewis It seems to me that RFID chips are in their infancy. Given time and technological advancement the security on these chips should become more secure. They should not be used as a manner of security on people until the chips are unassailable from predators. However, it would be perhaps a better use to impant them in people with Alzheimer’s, so if they get lost or confused somewhere they can easily be identified. These chips are the future however, some day it will be just like Demolition Man where a persons identification, credit cards, and GPS location can be tracked via a chip imbedded somewhere on their person. Before this kind of RFID chips are implemented on kids I think they should be riguriusly tested and enbedded with a strong security system that makes it difficult to break. Otherwise, very serious problems will arise if the technology malfuctions or an outsider is able to alter the chip for malice reasons. I think its a useful invention for per se pets, or tracking inventory in a business, nevertheless privacy issues arise. Just judging from teh plethora of identity theft that takes place in our society today it is almost unfathomable to imagine some consequentces of such technology, like claiming a kid that isnt yours. 15
Appendix 7
386 W06
week_two-topic_two 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636
I think parents should be able to decide to a certain age if they want to attach one to a child because it is their right and they should know the potential consequences./P> It would be kind of cool and very convenient to be able to pay for things at the touch of a finger. However, I don’t think that getting out my cash/credit card is too hard to do. I guess if they perfected a system so that people wouldn’t cut off my finger, I’d jump on the bandwagon. But until them, I think I will keep my finger intact. At least if my credit card is stolen, I can cancel it and apply for a new one. If my finger is stolen, I guess I could cancel it, but I don’t know about the replacement issue. As of now, forging fingerprints seems too likely to happen. I don’t think I have my fingerprints on record anywhere right now, but if someone really wanted them they could just stalk me and take my drinking glass the next time I’m at a restaurant. This finger business isn’t about to start tomorrow, so if some smart people work out the kinks, it could be good. I think this idea just seems really weird. I agree that in some ways it could seem convenient, but why try to fix something that there is really nothing wrong with. This idea seems to have too many issues that could create complications and just give us more things that we are going to feel we have to fix and the cycle will never end.
16
Appendix 7
387 W07
week_three_topics 1 2
The topics this week come from the technology section of cnn.com (Business 2.0) and Fortune magazine.
3
Week Three-Topic One
What is this thing called Second Life?
4
Week Three-Topic Two
The start of biometric payments.
5
1
Appendix 7
388 W08
week_three-topic_one 1
What is this thing called Second Life?
2 3 4 5
"Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by nearly 100,000 people from around the globe."
6 7 8 9 10 11
What is not said is that it costs money to buy "land." However, money can be made. Even though the currency is in "Linden Dollars" there are people converting the currency to US$ or Euros. I have added three links below. The first is to the Second Life site. The second and third links are to articles on second life and one of the main players of Second Life (who, by the way, makes a six-figure income doing so).
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Please investigate Second Life. Look at it from the social aspects (e.g., virtual versus real worlds) and from the business potential (i.e., as a player, real estate investor, advertiser-real one of course-just think of putting in land with ads for Pepsi or BMWs). Critically examine this idea and how, if at all, it related to the real world, or is it just an extension of the real world? Discuss any aspects that you find interesting.
19
http://secondlife.com/
20 21
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/ 12/01/8364581/index.htm?cnn=yes
22 23
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982001.ht m
24 25 26 27 28 29
Anyone interested in Second Life absolutely has to read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. An amazing book that was so far ahead of it's time that it seems almost impossible that it was written in 1992. Second Life (and other reasonable facsimiles thereof) are based on Stephenson's "Metaverse", a virtual reality world that can best be described as "Second Life, only 15 years earlier".
30 31 32 33 34 35
]I have explored the Second Life and find it very interesting. It included many of the social aspects of everyday life. You are able to travel and shop at many interesting places. It was designed by some very smart people who are trying to give you an exciting real world 1
Appendix 7
389 W08
week_three-topic_one 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
experience. I would be interested in purchasing a couple of parcels of land. On one I would build my house and on another nearby location I would start my business. I like the idea of being surrounded by the creations of the other residents. I think this is like the real world where you can have a melting pot of different people. This only serves to make life more interesting. I think the use of the Linden dollar can teach a person quite a bit about currency exchange and some basic economics. The business opportunities in the marketplace is also a good way to learn and experience what happens in an economy.
45 46 47 48
I think this is retarded! This is just another way for people to waist their time and money. People should be reading the newspaper and reading other pertinent information about stuff that actually matters in today’s world instead of drowning their sorrows in some stupid fake world where they can recreate their pathetic lives and probably fail in the virtual world too.
49 50
I love WoW.
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
I don't really know what to think about it... It seems like this is a more expensive version of the sims, with the possibility of making money. But in reality only the people who already have money can make money using second life. I think it is a cool idea, and people that already have money can use it to their benefit (ie to advertise to other second life users) but I dont think that "normal" people (students for example) are going to buy into second life because it could end up losing money for some people...
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
I think that Second Life is pretty stupid. I agree with both of the responses posted above mine. I think that it is a waste of time and money, but if you have that much free time and money on your hands I guess you find any way you can to spend it. For the rich and computer nerds I guess that this is a good idea. I personally know that I would never use it because I can find a lot more things to spend my time and money on. I think that it is kind of silly because it allows people to escape the real world and it allows people that otherwise don't interact in the world to interact with others. I think that if you have to use this game to talk to people that you might have a social disorder and that you need help. It does seem to be a more expensive version of The Sims. I wish that I had invented Second Life because the creators are making a huge amount of money off this since there are soo many people who belong to it!
72 73
So i pretty much agree with the people above... when reading the topic for the first time i immediatly thought of the Sims--- also 2
Appendix 7
390 W08
week_three-topic_one 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
i thought of this other computer game i used to play when i was little... where i basically built my own town and stuff. Honestly it was pretty fun---but.. i believe have this type of "hobby" or "job" whatever would lead to a anti-socail life style. Come home, or stay home, and do nothing else but eat, drink, and build your second lifen = kinda ridiculous. Also i believe that the people who are making six figures out of this second life thing are very fortunate that our society today is willing to making any type of activity a job.
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
This definitely just seems like a game to me. Don't we have better things to do with our time than just sit around buying land that isn't even real?? I hope we do! Somehow we have lost the grasp over what is real and how to enjoy the people and things around us that are real. This just seems really sad to me. I have never even heard about the Second Life. I agree with other comments that it reminded me of the Sims game. I used to play that game when it first came out several years ago. I remember that it was actually pretty addicting. The true might be same of the Second Life. I thought that the whole idea of Sims was old news but apparently not. I know that computer games seem to be really popular and I’m always hearing about those people that just sit on their computer and play computer games all day. There seems to be a big following of computer players so that is probably why this has proven to be such a big hit. The part that bothers me the most is that people are making money off of it. It is just to close to the game of Sims for another creator to be making money off of it. The game doesn’t compare at all to real life. There is no way that a game can compare to real life. It’s a game. ~ Those calling this invention "stupid" and "retarded" are certainly not taking the request of the initial questions into consideration, i.e. the social aspects and business potential of the whole scheme. Sure, it's "just another way for people to waste time and money", but what isn't? That new Ipod, those new rims, that new house, those shoes, that XBOX 360 video game system...all proof that we, as humans, are willingly and easily victimized by creative profit-seekers who find new and innovative ways to tap into our mind's interests and tweak our desires. You probably have a favorite restaurant or bar...why? Something about that particular restaurant or bar appeals to you in a way that convinces you, in all your consuming innocence, to spend money and time there. See, every person's poison is different, but no one can get enough of it. From a business perspective, Second Life is financial genius! Consider it a similar investment to a typical internet domain name. Instead of a bunch of letters with a ".com" extension, you buy a piece of "land". Like the domain name, this "owned" piece of cyberspace real estate can be customized, shared, sold or used for real-life profits. But, as a player of this "Second Life", you get the added opportunity of meeting others of similar tastes and interests, without exposing yourself as you would in real life. It costs less to build a Chinese palace in the "in-world" than it does to visit a real one. Plus, you can live in it or sell it at your leisure. Inhabitants are 3
Appendix 7
391 W08
week_three-topic_one 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
not restricted by limited resources as we are in real life...anything that can be thought of can be had. A kid in a wheelchair can run and interact with people who would otherwise avoid him on the street in real life. Hell, I'm thinking of buying a plot myself, setting the whole thing on fire and calling it "Masta' C's Eternal Inferno Fun House." Sure, it's just another thing to "own" and "waste time" on, but so is that skateboard I bought 6 years ago that's sitting in the corner unused and the stack of DVDs collecting dust next to it. From a social context, it IS very much like real life. Money-draining aside, the networking opportunities of such a program are endless. Just look at its growing popularity...the attendance of Second Life practically doubles every six months. People from all walks of life are taking an interest in it. These aren't just computer nerds living at their parents' houses; these are entrepreneurs and business executives, real estate agents and university teachers. If I was Pepsi, I'd certainly pay to put billboards in the land of "Second Life." I'd be reaching 100,000 people a day and, no matter what company I was promoting, I'd have opportunities to access large interest groups that I wouldn't be able to reach efficiently in real life or elsewhere on the web. Give them a marketplace and the money-mongers will play. Look at Ebay. Look at your Ipod. If you haven't noticed yet, nearly every podcast is littered with advertisements of some form. So is that cell phone in your pocket (vibrating with the latest text-ad message as you read this). Unfortunately, neither your Ipod nor your cell phone allow you and your friends to sail together on a magic carpet to an exotic castle in cyberspace to have a cup of tea with the CEO of a real foreign company and discuss business ventures for your next plot of "land". Sure, some people will take it too seriously, but they'll make the most out of it. Take real life too seriously and you end up with high blood pressure, wrinkles and premature hair loss. At least you can get a girlfriend if you're a magical frog in Second Life! Look at this creation as an unbelievably innovative opportunity for business, communication, expression, social engineering, networking and virtual commerce! When you finally give in and sign up for Second Life, be sure to stop by Masta' C's Eternal Inferno Fun House I'll be the tall red guy at the gate with the goatee on my chin, horns on my head and dollar signs in my eyes; taking your money and wasting your time... ~ Masta' C I have never heard of second life and like some of the statements above it does remind me of the Sims game. and like Masta' C said sure it is a waste of time and money, but honestly what isn't? My statement is to each their own. So would I buy a piece of 'land" in cyberspace,; no, never. But from a business perspective the company is innovative and successful reguradless of what they are making money off of. And from a social context this game is designed for anybody that finds interest in the game, and I feel can be a great outlet for people to escape the everyday troubles of life and live their "Second Life" So I dont feel it is a waste of money, it is only a waste of money if your the one that feels their wasting the money so like I siad "To each their own"...... I think this is a great idea. The main problem is that for people who want to dabble, it's too expensive and for people who want to do more than dabble, it takes too much time. I used to play the Sims and Sim City which are both quite addicting. Imagine playing those fun games for hours and hours but making money. Not only that but you get all kinds of opportunities in the game that you don't get in real life.
4
Appendix 7
392 W08
week_three-topic_one 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206
In terms of the business world this could mean big things including product placement and market research. In the prompt, advertisements for Pepsi and BMW were mentioned. One of the problems that I mentioned above was that it takes a lot of money for start up, kind of like real life. Entities that do have a lot of money are giant companies like Pepsi and BMW. What if these companies did more than sponsor players, what if they created players themselves that did nothing but promote and sell Pepsi products? They have billions of dollars to spend. If the population of secondlife increases, I would not be surprised if it happens. In terms of social implications, very scary. Suppose it catches on to the point where a majority of the world makes a living in the second life world. No one would go to work or even go out because they're living through their fake realities. The only people in real business would be computer manufacturers and supermarket owners. We would lose a lot of qualities that use human interaction. In an extreme case, it might be the end of verbal communication. Something sort of like this started in the late 90s but was a huge failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Generation
I have to agree with “Master C”. This virtual world is a great tool for developing business and merging fantasy and role playing into a setting that provides the user with a new sense of being. I myself have neither time nor the money to participate in this virtual life, but if I did I would start my Second Life by opening a virtual business. I would have the opportunity to test run products, services, and entertainment with a low out of pocket cost. At the same time, I would be able to have interaction with customers who I would never come into contact with on any other level. The business models are pretty much virtual already, so it would be easy for customers to adapt to this setting. The only thing that might become a problem would be the loss of real face to face interaction. If a participant becomes so comfortable with the technology that he/she chooses not to leave the Second life world and come back to the real world, I could see a break down in interpersonal communication and the loss of real relationships. Like drugs, this might become an addiction that destroys a person’s outlook on reality, and leaves them disillusioned. But that is the chance you have to take when introducing something new. The ability to exchange US currency for the currency used in the virtual world sounds interesting. In one of the articles it stated that the currency inflates or deflates based on the dollar. So this, to me, shows how the Second Life is related to the real world. The other thing that was funny was how the reporter in the article was worried about his character being homeless and having to stand around when he was not logged in. That’s funny. Could I buy him a box or maybe design a homeless shelter for those who cannot afford to buy some land to build 5
Appendix 7
393 W08
week_three-topic_one 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
a house a house on? This too is a real world connection that seems to have become a part of the virtual world: Homelessness. I believe that Second Life has definately made an impact in the "real world" because of the ability for the player to create any situation they want. Yes, this is similar to Sims and yes it has become increasingly popular, which makes it a success for the creators in the "real world". People love the fact that they can "play G-d" and make up any situation. I have played the Sims, and although I don't own it I think that it is a very clever idea. One thing that I noticed in Sims was that there are certain passwords to obtain money in the games. I am not sure if there is one for Second Life though. While the players are making money in the game, it seems as if the creators are making real money from their success. I just think that it is not productive for people to become hooked and put their playing time infront of "real world" communication. I don't believe that you are taught anything in the "real world" by making money in the game. It is just a fun activity to do in your free time. Why can't someone live an imaginery life? everyone seems to have a problem with it although if its what makes you happy why not? maybe its a relief of stress to be able to get away and experience new things through this imaginery world. There are benefits in getting away from the realities of life. maybe there are alternative ways as to how they can create this alternative life although this is the one they have chosen. have fun with it. make it everything you cant get out of your own life. I think this game is really interesting and have lot of benefit for real world. In fact, the world is just only “virtual”. The users have to remain that. But, the game has potentials that help to recognize economic and social develop as simulation. In the game, there is no specific goal like defeat enemy or get high scores by some action. That makes this game as special. The players can make highly independent decision in the game and make prefer rules by them self. It is showed more flexible communication with the others and improves and stimulates more free way of thinking and new discovery than real world. And, on Second Life, it helps social unfortunate peoples, like disabled person, with society. So, I think it really interesting thing to invest time and money to such virtual world as business. Perhaps. The idea of second life is very interesting. I have played many MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online roleplaying games *phew*) over the years and one can't help but notice that in any MMOG with currency or goods, there is a thriving and real economy. Just as in real life, these economies are controlled by supply and demand. When I used to play Everquest (yes, i am elusive nerd that previous posters have spoken of), I would stay in the trade centers looking for good deals on items that I knew were in high demand. If I could find a good deal on an item that was in high demand, one that was going for way
6
Appendix 7
394 W08
week_three-topic_one 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
under the average price, i would scoop it up, and resell it and make profit. The same can be done with stocks, real estate or any other investment. The problem in most MMOGs is that it is against the rules to sell online stuff, for real money. In the agreement, you basically are renting their property when you play a character, the character and all its belongings actually belong to the software company. Therefore, by selling online stuff for real money, you are stealing from them by selling their property. The interesting thing about second life is that it seems like this behavior isn't descouraged, but infact it is encouraged. The idea of an online economy is not a new one. In almost every MMOG there is one, but its the idea of its connection with the real world economy that makes it so interesting. Developing real estate online is no different than developing real estate in real life. Don't knock it 'till you try it... the thing is that im going to knock it and by no means am i going to try it. This has to be one of the dumbest things i have ever heard of. I applaud the creator of this secondlife nonsense for their ingenuity because they have created something people are willing to blow big bucks on. Honestly some times it seems that people have nothing better to do, this is honestly as the title suggest a second life. It is ridiculous. Paying actual dollars for services that arent even real? Who cares what you can do in the virtual world. This is no way should be any substitute for the real world. Why would a disabled person want to be liked in a virtual world over being liked in the real one. Thats not a disability thats a totally different ball game. Its not interesting to invest time and money in the virtual world, because guess what? its not real. I can't go one any more its giving me headache Ok..second life seems pretty cool, but it seems kind of obsessive. It will allow people to become almost completely detached from reality. But I can see how it could be beneficial. I kind of look at it from an investment point of view. It seems that if you got in early on a lot of property within the game and built up quite an empire you could sell it to some nerd for a lot of money. Some games already do this. So I am just waiting for the ultimate "second life" kinda game to come out so i can but some real estate in there and just let it appreciate...haha. Sounds kind of silly but i bet you it could work.
This second life “game” is amazing. This is the first time that I hear about this type of game. As I was browsing and reading through the web sites I was amazed at how interesting this thing is. Second life includes everything. It’s like an imaginary, fantasy life that we can all participate in and make it our own. I still don’t understand how it has become so popular if it isn’t like an actual game, since it does not involve any sort of score keeping. But I guess that the excitement is literally creating a second life different from this one. The web sites seem to suggest that this game really does include a lot of real world features. It has its own virtual economy. Since a society can be created through the second life game, there is a chance for company’s to advertise their products and buy products that they usually wouldn’t buy in this life. As a player you have to opportunity to purchase things and make real life transactions. I don’t know if this game has an age limit but if it doesn’t then it is a great opportunity for teens to get a head start and be introduced to real life transactions.
7
Appendix 7
395 W08
week_three-topic_one 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343
Second life is pretty much just that. A second chance for people to experience life without the limitations they face in the everyday world. Since the game is fairly new there is not as much competition for property and business. The virtual world offers opportunities that are not as attainable in reality either because of cost, logistics or other barriers. It is an interesting look at what would happen if people were allowed to disguise themselves and create their ideal world without being held accountable and without having to deal with present day social pressures, being judged and being scrutinized. The anonymity provided by second life creates an outlet for people’s creative abilities. The fact that money can be made is only an added incentive for those who are participating. Unfortunately it seems as though the monetary aspect of the site will attract advertisers and entrepreneurs to the point that they may crowd and drive away users who are playing the game to escape the real world and the commercialism that goes along with it. But will people be willing to abandon the site given they have invested so much time, effort and money? I think these built in costs are handcuffs that will keep people involved and willing to tolerate future changes. But this is only one of many possible outcomes that could arise as the site become more widely known and frequented. There is another scary side that we have not yet talked about. This is totally mindblowing! Rather than knocking the site itself, perhaps we should knock the idiots that actually use it like everyday life. The world is huge as it is and there are much better ways for one to spend his/her money. BUT, the fact that the site is actually a success simply indicates that there is a need for it out there and that there are enough stupid people to buy into the concept of paying REAL money for VIRTUAL land and a virtual life. The concept though is completely unique and I think it is fascinating... like someone at the beginning said... it is like SIMS brought to the 'real' world though. And please excuse all puns. Second Life looks like it would be a fun game. I think it would definitely appeal to those who are of the “artsy” type or someone who has a lot of time on there hands. It seems like it an improved version of the game THE SIMS. However, Second Life looks like it contains endless opportunities for creativity, which is probably why it has been so successful thus far. I find it extremely interesting that the people who play this game have the opportunity to earn money by selling their creations. Games are always more interesting when your money is involved. I am not quit sure what kind of person is willing to spend their money on “virtual creations,” but apparently there is a market for it. The game does look cool. However, I am positive that the average person lacks the spare time that is needed to make purchasing this “game” worthwhile. Who knows how much time it takes to create a fun virtual life? The market for this game for sure does not depend on the technologically challenged. For those people like myself, it would take a lifetime to figure out how to use this game to its full potential. For that reason alone I personally would not waste my valuable time with this game. I've heard of Second Life for quite a while. In fact, I have it installed on my hard drive and have played it a couple times. I've heard good things about it and yet, I have seen none of it. Personally, 8
Appendix 7
396 W08
week_three-topic_one 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
it is a 3D game-version of MySpace in which people, rather than socially network, use the game to create a fake persona and live their lives through that. The game even features a red-light district in which people go and spend their linden (fake money they payed for with real money mind you) on cyber-sex. Other than that, I have not experienced any redeeming qualities in the game. I've found that I've been more social with people in my guild in World of Warcraft (a fantasy RPG that is spent killing mobs of enemies) than I ever have in Second Life. Perhaps I haven't spent enough time playing the game, but I doubt I will return to it. In fact, I think I'll uninstall it right now. Just pay the $15 a month to play World of Warcraft, you'll have a much better time. By the way, Second Life brings up something I absolutely detest, and that's paying for in-game (fake) money with real money. This has been done in many MMORPG's such as Everquest, Final Fantasy XI, and Ultima Online but it is still horrible. What's worse is that this game's entire economy is based upon this concept. On the bright side, at least the money doesn't come from exploited children ("Chinese Gold Farmers" as they're called) in third-world countries. I figure, if you want something bad enough in the game, save your money and work to earn it. You're already paying by the month, put it to some good use.
366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384
I really have a hard time understanding the appeal of this concept. Why would someone ever agree to spending REAL money on a FAKE game. Second Life allows its users, or "habitants" to have a completely new identity and live a completely different life. My problem with this is the fact that many of its users don't recognize that this new life, or escape from their real life, is actually fake. The fact that people actually spend real money to attain a house, or a hooker like the one commented above, makes me sick. This is literally throwing away your money. For the social aspects of this game, I can understand people who may not have a life here on umm "earth" if I can say that much, wanting to meet new people and add some excitement to their oh so boring life. I mean seriously, can you ever imagine sitting at home on a Friday night, not accepting any offers to go out into the real world for let's say a drink or movie, but instead opting to stay at home and play with your Second Life, make a virtual friend that lives in your fake community, and while your at it stop by the virtual red light district and pay for services that let's face it you will never experience in reality. I know I sound condescending and even rude when I say this, but honestly I think most would agree that this entire concept can be summed up as CREEPY. The only benefit from this game is the fiscal and economic gains that the "real-estate agents" receive when making 9
Appendix 7
397 W08
week_three-topic_one 385 386
commision (in real money) from selling a fake virtual house. And even that is a joke.
387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396
I hadnt heard of this before. This game is pretty fascinating. It allows people to creat the life they would like to live if it wernt for the constraints of "actual life". The fact that a person can make money playing this game, is astounding. Chances are, with summer rolling around, I'll give this a try and see what happens. However, that does not mean that this is necessarly a good idea, some people are crazy and would get WAYYYYY to into this game. The populrity of "simulation" games, espically life simulators, is strange. something like a flight simulator is understandable, because most people wouldnt have the time, money, or desire to become an actual piolt, so a simulator may be a fun way to spend a few hours. "life simulators" like this are just plain odd though, everyone has a life, some people only live the length of it though.
397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422
This "Second Life" is quite weird, just going to the website and reading all their information made me feel like I was lost for a couple of hours; I can't imagine what being inside that world would feel like after a while. One of the articles speaks that this virtual site has a limited core fan base. I think this is true because there's only a certain number of people who would find this type of site attractive. Even though their membership has grown to over 100,000, it's hard to imagine that this would be appealing to the majority of sane people. Most people, who have a life worth attending to, would not want to live in a fantasy world or a game that provides no fruition. I know that there are some, like the guy who sold his game and will be released on video; it might be worthwhile for him, but for how many is this really worth their while? There's a very proper suggestion in the article that parallels this Second Life to the Matrix. This is trying to incorporate an imaginary world into our very real lives. Some people are making money on this, but there are also people who make money on video games; however, the only ones making money are the makers of the game, that's what I see. I can also see how business marketers might see this as a golden opportunity to position products and create an internet buildboard, which I think has been done somewhere else. This can be lucrative for businesses; it can be just another form of advertising. Businesses will seek out any place where they know a great number of people congregate, thus they will find this site attractive. I myself think is a good place to place ads, but I would never think of playing the game of life. So, for businesses it might be profitable, but for the one who lives this fantasy world, I don't see much profit. All I see is a waste of time and money. One of the criticism at the end of the second article warns against all the money that one looses on these games 10
Appendix 7
398 W08
week_three-topic_one 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436
and that he used to play this when he was a teenager, but that he can't believe that people in their 30's are actually interested in this site, "To all those people who are under 17, don't do it- its time consuming, you spend way to much money..." I think his warning is right on the money. This is a site geared to those who are confused and lack a purpose in life, and I'm afraid of how addicting this can be. It can become like those who are addicted to drugs. They can't stop using them because it fills a certain void in their life. I feel sorry for those who are trying out to live their youth or their imaginary lives. Why do they have to imagine to own land when you can do it in reality? Why imagine to have a party when you can have one in real life? I don't know but this is just too strange for me. As I said at the beginning, it was just weird reading about it. I got a sense that I had left the real world, as if I was hallucinating. When I left the sight I felt very relieved. I had come back to reality, to earth, thank God.
437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447
This second life concept is absolutely crazy. It is hard to imagine how such an enterprise came to be in the first place. To me it seems like a waste of time and money, but I imagine that if you were involved and actually making money off of something that doesn't really exist, then it would probably be pretty addicting. Games like SimCity and the Sims have been around for quite some time now, but this second life really takes the virtual world to a whole other level. The purpose of games such as the Sims it to simulate human life, but it is just a game. People playing second life aren't just playing a game, they are making a business out of something that no real measurable value. Ah technology, what will they come up with next?
448 449 450 451 452 453
* So much has already been written on this topic, so I am just going to reiterate some of the main points that I agree with. First of all I love the Sims 2, and have lost countless hours to that game. I think that second life is merely that game to a larger degree. Only now, you will not only loose all of your time, but you are also spending more money. I have never heard of second life. It is obviously not that big yet, but I have a feeling that it will not catch on, at the most it will simply be a fad that sticks around for a year or two.
454 455 456 457 458 459
I think that the second life is a very good concept but in actuality it is just a complete waste of time. It seems that the idea was developed from The Sims and is just trying to get people to spend more time on their computers and put more money into them. Of course the guys who are the main players are getting the six-figure
11
Appendix 7
399 W08
week_three-topic_one 460 461 462 463
salary they're the ones that have no life and sit at the computer all day sucking people into this crap. Sorry, but I just think that ideas like this make people lazy and never want to leave the house.
464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499
Investing in Second Life might be kind of like investing in stocks, but with no purpose. At least with stocks, you own a portion of the company. With Second Life, you own...some pictures on a website? Ya..that’s weird. IT has been great for the world and our country, but it has brought along with it the lack of desire to have human interactions. Before we had telephones and email, the only way people communicated was face-toface or with mail, which took forever and so probably wasn’t too effective. Now that we have telephones, email, cell phones, myspace, facebook, instant messaging, FedEx, UPS and a much better USPS human communication is much quicker but less personalized. All of those channels of communication allow us to interact with more people, but the more people we interact with, the less we interact with any particular person. No one can say if this is a good thing or bad thing and be right.
500 501 502
Honestly this whole second life is pretty freaky. Why are people so unsatified with their first lives that they have to create a second one in cyber space? I guess this is a good way for people with money to
Second life is more like a replacment for life. These people are buying property and land that doesnt exist, you can touch it you can smell it. This sounds like an idea for the people who spend their whole life playing video games. Second life is taking it too far. IT is soomething that should be helping us. It should be benefitting our society in positive ways and I beleive that this is what it has been doing for a while now by the internet and ATMs. But this does something different. Second life takes your life and makes it fake and imaginary. nno longer will there be a grip on reality. These people leave there virtual homes and come into something different. Reality isnt reality for them. It is almost as if it has switched. Yet the one thing that I read from above that I didnt agree with comes from the one with pink writing. When you say that the creators of second life are the ones with no life, I would like to ask you how much you make? Because they make a hell of alot more than I do. Regardless of what they are selling they are the business geniouses who are selling pictures as property. Software costs nothing property costs alot. If we continue in this direction the line will only grow smaller between reality to fantasy. I had never heard of the SecondLife game until now. I have no experience at all with computer games, haven’t played any at all, not even Sims, the one that everyone is referring to. From a business perspective it looks as though it would be pretty successful if there are enough people who are still into these things. I really thought computer games were just a fad that went away a long time ago. But, I’m way wrong. This is the first I have heard about them in a long time. It looks as though it could be more engaging and exciting than some of the other ones. The guy who invented it seems like he could be pretty successful if this game does well like some of those other popular ones, so it seems like pretty easy money.
12
Appendix 7
400 W08
week_three-topic_one 503 504 505
make more money. But I personally would not invest in this 2nd life. i would rather put my money into something that is real. But maybe i just don't understand the point of this.
506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516
wow, I’ve never heard or thought about something like second life. But I agree with those people that say that they can learn something about real life in this virtual world. As far as economics goes, one can base a business and finance land and such, the principles of economics applied in the virtual world or second life, is the same as the real world. And some benefit both in the virtual world and the real world, what better way to spend your time. If I mess around with this idea of second life and I have a few dollars that I can convert to linden dollars, I will definitely purchase some land. I seen a vinyard that caught my eye.
517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526
Bring it on! Second Life definitely takes online multiplayer interaction to the next level. Many people may not be ready for the next level though. I've watched my brothers life decline from his addiction to World of Warcraft. Thats only a nominal mothly subscription game. I can just imagine him goin crazy and buying lots in Second Life. Some people get so caught up in these games that they lose touch with reality. By playing with essentially "real" dollars, Second Life may be able to provide reminders of the real world. From watching my brother play this genre constantly, I can say that these games probably do create a social hazard. He would rather be in his virtual world. Its a true addiction. I've heard of 12-step programs popping up to deal with this problem
527 528 529
On the business side...genious! The virtual market is a great concept that has room for growth if large companies try to advertise. The game developers may be wary of overkill with this concept. There may be negative reactions to saturated marketing in a game like this.
530
13
Appendix 7
401 W09
week_three-topic_two 1
The start of biometric payments.
2 3 4
"Buying groceries with the touch of a finger could be closer than you think, if new research touting the benefits of biometric payment for retail giants like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco is anything to go by."
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Well, biometrics are starting to appear. Once their use was for security, but it is now possible to use your fingerprint as you credit card, or better yet (from the stores' point-of-view) your checking account (because of lower fees). Read through the article from Fortune magazine and evaluate the use of biometrics and the financial, social, and legal aspects of this technology. Remember that technology has two sides to it.
12 13
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_fort une_biometrics/index.htm
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
For those of you whose comments favored the adoption of biometric payment and security systems, please review the huge number of articles and professional opinions out there on the ease of hacking biometric systems (Google Search). My personal favorite approach is to get someone's fingerprint impression onto a Gummi Bear and using that to "fool" the scanner into thinking it's a real finger.
The number one problem with this as I see it would be the data basing of finger prints. As of now you have your finger prints to yourself, and the only others that have them are the police, if you have a criminal record that is. Your prints would not just be stored at one grocery store, but at every chain that you wanted to be able to take advantage of this product at. However, the customer does decide if they want to use the technology so it is not as if there is any ethical issue present. However I don’t think that these potential frauds should scare us out of the outstanding increases in earnings and efficiencies. All efficiencies will be in sectors that won’t, at least at first, reduce jobs and if anything increases them by increasing the companies’ bottom line allowing them to cut less jobs by freeing up more capital. By using this system you can know what kind of accounts a customer has and offer him incentives at time of purchase for using the type of account that will benefit you most. When you look at the percentages of people enrolling in these systems you can see how reluctant customers are to use this new technology, and in order to get them to change the supermarkets will probably have to use some incentive programs. I believe this new and innovative way to pay at the register will be beneficial to the ever increasing number of people on the go. By today's standards, every second really counts for those who have to juggle many tasks throughout their days. The task of going to the grocery store should not be one to have to worry about anymore. With the new system 1
Appendix 7
402 W09
week_three-topic_two 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
that utilizes one's fingerprint, the consumer is able to cut the time spent in lines and spend more time with their families or whatever they please. With this in mind, using a fingerprint system to pay also cuts down on the transaction cost which will benefit the consumer ever so slightly but the merchants very greatly. With the increase in retention of revenue from transaction costs, it will boost the amount of spending power which in turn directly affects number of employees and the ability to be more competitive with their pricing. Just as any new technology that is introduced, there may be a chance of bugs, but with improvements these bugs can be eliminated to provide a greater shield of security for the American Consumer. So I say we give it a shot and see how well this new system will turn out to be.
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
This topic totally reminded me of the movie Gattica. If you have seen it you will know what I am talking about. Im not sure if it could be done but in this movie, they used biometrics to get into their work and one of the characters pasted a piece of rubber material on his finger that had the finger print of an authorized person. He used this to gain acess to the building so that her could pretend that he was someone else. As I said before I don't know if this would be possible, but if so that would be a major security problem. It seems as though it would be a more efficent and safe way of doing things, but I think that just like credit cards, if you are smart enough and know enough about hacking that you could break into the data base and find other people's finger prints. I think that there is risk involved in any method of payment other than cash. I understand why it would be so appealing to companies because of the reduction of labor expenses but from a workers standpoint it would not be so appealing. I may sound like a Ludite, but it just seems like another excuse to lay off somewhat unskilled workers. I think that we will see this increase in popularity in the future.
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Umm... so how do you steal my money? Do you cut off my finger or do you take my finger print? As we've discussed before, information is stored as a series of ones and zeros. Theoretically the biometrics would reference data stored by the companies at which customers would scan themselves in. I think that it might be different to store your credit card information according to fingerprints rather than to password protect it on Amazon, but I am uncomfortable with the lack of concern for privacy that checkout clerks and employees typically have. I get asked for my id maybe once in five times. Perhaps I do stand a better chance of being "safe" if I'm "asked for my id" every time I access my acocunt? It does pose the risk that stealing customer information could yeild not only accounts, but also criminal, medical, and whatever other histories "they" choose to store with your fingerprints these (and in the future) days. 2
Appendix 7
403 W09
week_three-topic_two 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127
Upon reading the article, I thought of a similar article I came across in the Wall Street Journal that discussed the use of cellular phones as a payment method, similar to a system currently used in Europe. Technology will always constantly change payment methods. Think of electronic e-bills, point of sale transactions, and cellular phone transcactions, and now biometric payment. It is just another way to make consumer-oriented payment services more convenient. And although this advancement scares people because they think it is unsafe, how is it any less safe than credit card fraud or ay other risk you take when you stray from a paper based payment system? 95% of small transactions in the US are still paper based for that reason, the biggest change has been for large transactions which are now 85% electronic. I feel that biometric payment was eventually going to occur and advancements in technology are always welcomed into consumers' lives, as long as there is some type of safety guaranteed to the consumers. I think that as the technology quickly improves more and more the the idea of making payments with your finger with make more and more sense. Right now identity theft is occuring so often that something new needs to be done. We need to take advantage of these amazing new technologies that are coming out all the time. To me the idea of biometric payments seems like a great solution to many of the problems that identity theft has, and for us to not explore this option would be a shame. I definitly believe that more and more safty precautions should take place before huge stores like Wal-Mart and Costco dive head first into these, and I know that they have been exploring these ideas for some time now. We should embrace such a great technology and let our economy and peoples identity benefit from it! I really do not like the idea of my finger paying for things. The whole idea I think is just too futuristic for me. It creeps me out a little bit I just don’t think I’m ready to make such an advance in society. Reading the article was pretty interesting. I don’t understand how it will make the checkout process so much faster. The only way I think the checkout process takes a really long time is when a check is used. Scanning a finger is the same as a credit card and once a finger is scanned they will still have to enter a phone number and a type of payment. Another part of the article that surprised me was when it talked about the experiment used at the Piggly Wiggly and the results. It said how the people in the experiment came more often and bought more stuff. I do not see the correlation (they did have correlation but did not support causation. We can correlate sunspot activity to the stock market but the sun spots do not cause the market changes. -jcs) at all. It was an interesting topic to think about and I never have thought about this at all. I still don’t agree with the whole concept about finger paying. I think that this whole biometrics thing is great. The ability to shop and buy things without a credit card or cash, and using just your finger tip is something that was once only a dream. It is very hard to duplicate someones finger print so the chance of robbery 3
Appendix 7
404 W09
week_three-topic_two 128 129 130 131 132
or theft by using someone elses print is very minimal. However, there will always be a way to cheat the system somehow. I think that credit cards and cash payments are much easier to be either stolen or copied as a source of theft. The fact that we can use our finger prints as a source of payment is a great achievement for the world of technology.
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
I agree that the biometrics idea is a great thing that could save customers time but also cut down on the retailers cost. Instead of waiting five minutes for grandma in front of you to fumble through her purse to find the dime and nickel to make exact change, with biometrics she could just slide her finger over the biometric reader and be out the door saving everyone in the line time. The only question I have with this new technology is actually how much safer it really is. The article stated it would cut down on identity theft, but there must be ways for people to get around this system. In the movie "Gone in Sixty Seconds" one of the robbers glued a set of fingerprints over his own, making him undetectable when the cops checked the fingerprints on the stolen car. And my thought are there are people out there with the technology and know how to steal people identity, so I'm just wondering if this is really that much safer.
145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168
This sounds like a really great idea. I just have one question. When you are setting up an account, you have to register all of your banking information. So, doesn’t this mean that all your credit card and checking information is on file in a database? This could allow any worker, or anyone that could get their hands on the database, to retrieve this information. Computers are not my thing, so I don’t really understand how it works, but that was what first came to my mind. One of the purposes for stores to invest in this technology is that it offers 70% faster checkout. WHY is everyone always in such a hurry??? All our advancement in technology is always marketed with the idea that it will save you time, and make your life easier. Everyone, especially in California, needs to slow down and enjoy life. Think of the person in line behind you, or in front of you. Talk to some of these people and see how their day is going. Enjoy the time you have to just stand there and relax your mind. Biometric payments will only increase over time. For many years while watching movies you could see all kinds of eye, body and finger scanning methods being used. Biometric scanners have been slowing catching on at places like the airport, the bank ATM and some companies to have their employees do this instead of using a paper time card. The United States government is thinking about using finger scan technology as a way to monitor its borders. The costs to monitor our borders must be very high . With our government running such a large defecit it would seem that the use of biometrics would reduce costs and also identify epople more accurately. I like the idea tha a person can 4
Appendix 7
405 W09
week_three-topic_two 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213
pay for their groceries or cash a check and not have to remember their credit card or checkbook or even their drivers license. With security becoming one of the most important parts of every day life it seems like people and corporations will start to accept biometrics as an important part of every day life. One of the expensive things tht a store has to pay for is the charge from mastercard of visa. This is because the store owner can verify the identity of the person and also tha the money is in the account. There have bben problems at banks because of bounced checks. It would seem that a biometric payment system could be used to cancel all future transactions after the first bounced check. From a social standpoint biometrics could help the growing older generation. This is because old people will feel safer not having to walk around with money for fear of being mugged. This technology could also be used to help eliminate underage drinking and smoking. This is because a fingerprint could be used to identify the accurate age of a person. I think this is quite impressive and I do agree that it could save a lot of time, but with our rushed society, I think the waiting time is good for people to just relax and think about the moment they are in, rather than get all worked up because they're standing in a line. Also, people tend to spend much more money than they have and I think that with biometric payments, people would definitely spend more as the article says because it is so easy. There are times I know where I think about buying something but the line is too long so I go ahead and wait. If there were never lines, the customer wouldn't have to worry about this. So for the retailers it's great, but the consumers are going to just become more in debt. Lastly with the level of security, I would like to believe that this would make it more difficult for your identity to be stolen, however it is hard to. With all of the VERY bored people in our world who have the time to think of every possible way in order to get around things, I just have a hunch that this system could easily be figured out and messed with. So I guess for now I'm on the fence and just recommend taking those few minutes waiting in line as a break from your hectic day because it doesn't help your situation to freak out and get upset because there is someone in line holding you up. Well, I read the article, and I can see the point for a business use for it. It would definitely cut costs and make everything run a little more faster. But, my problem is the loss of privacy. If I use my fingerprint to access my checking account through a supermarket database that would mean this particular business would have something very private on their records. I really don’t feel safe knowing that this private business would now have access to certain accounts and now my fingerprint. Could an employee access my account, say a manager I went to school with, and who I may have physically hurt or possibly embarrassed at one time in school? Let’s hope he does not remember this and overlooks the urge to possibly pay me back. Or, even worse an ex-girl friend or boyfriend. Everyone has somebody in their life that has not really moved on with their own life. Think about that. If the use of this technology becomes wide spread, one day it could be mandatory.
5
Appendix 7
406 W09
week_three-topic_two 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259
It seems as if it is emphasized and much more convenient for the credit card companies to go on ahead with biometric payments. What about the customer? It will take time and trials to see whether the privacy issue is stable enough to withstand doubts. I know that points were given on how it is also convenient for the customer, but it seems risky. The security issue needs to be dealt with, or just try and find another alternative for easy payment. The security issues can be resolved. This will be a big improvement in the lives of many people. Just think that you don't have to worry about identity theft anymore. How about the fact that this could help identify underage drinkers and illegal people coming into our country that want to harm us. It is really useful than any payment system that today used such as credit card. By using biometric system, we will make more safety distinctions and make transactions faster with less cost. However, I think the new technology consists risk of seeking privacy like every one talking about above and, according to article, it still make little confusing to use. Before more distributing this technology, the some problems have to be solved for example, the biometric system is the information that directly relate to individuals, so it is possible to, contrary, seek to individuals. Furthermore, because it depends on specific human physical information, it is hard to make copy of alternatives, like when lost body parts that registered as biometric information. I believe that by having this finger print technology would not only just advance our society as a whole but would make life a lot less hectec. Like the article from fortune said that the speed from the register would increase and the time waiting in line for some shopper to find there check book or credit card. Losing your credit card would not even be a factor anymore, and credit card theft wouldnt matter because they would be a thing from the past. The only thing is that theft in one way or another would form like it always does. A hacker would get into the computer and figure out how to steal your money. Or having some way of copying your finger print onto some synthetic material and putting it on there finger. Photo id should be required along with your finger print. It is just a matter of time until credit cards are in our past. Ok call my crazy, but i dont think this is a good idea. Sure its quick and convenient, but there's one problem...Movies! I have seen way to many bad ass movies where criminals or thiefs or spies, or cool people like that get through these systems with fake fingerprints that pass for the person theyre trying to pass off as. Ok you may be thinking "ok its just a movie" but hey just because it happens in movies doesnt mean it couldnt happen in real life. We are not talking about X men super powers here, this is just a simple technology advancement that could lead to my identity theft one day! Unless really intense security matters were in place i dont think its a good. All i have to say is that the good better outweigh the bad. This technology comes down to businesses saving money. If this fingerprint technology was to be used then it would be encouraged to use your checking account and 6
Appendix 7
407 W09
week_three-topic_two 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305
by using your checking account businesses end up saving a lot of money. Biometric payments would make life much more convenient and faster. This type of payment is convenient for the consumer because we would not have to carry around big heavy wallets since all that is needed is our fingerprint. The consumer doesn’t have to worry about loosing their wallet or not having the correct credit card on them. Life would just become more accessible and lazy. I would have to admit that all this technology is scaring me. Pretty soon there will be machines running this world. In order for the biometric payments to be safe they would have to have a lot of regulations. Because this new idea can be shocking to some people and they may not feel comfortable with it at first, but with time one will get used to it. People just have to be open to new ideas and give them a try. I really can't say that using this technology would be bad. It could really prevent a lot of the ID theft that has been rampant in this country lately. Biometrics can make ID theft a thing of the past. Thieves could look at your bank statements, credit cards, and other personal information with no avail as they would not be able to use your accounts unless they could crack the biometrics system, which is not very likely. About a year ago the Texas House Defense Affairs Committee heard HB 2337, which would create a database of facial recognition metrics of Texas drivers and ID card holders. This was bill was approved by most of the state representatives, this type of technology has very little downsides and I expect to see it widely used in the future.
Let's get real! Biometrics is absolutely unnecessary. It feels like a personal invasion for the sake of transacting business. Consumers shouldn't be so easily influenced by these technological advances in the name of convenience. We can manage our own spending. Of course retailers want technology and technology wants to be wanted by retailers because they both make money. But they can't without us. But what about us, what do we get out of this deal? All we get is a quicker check out and spending our money faster than we earn it. I mean it's not like it's going to eliminate credit cards or check cards. We'll still need to carry around those methods of payment to shop at places where they don't take biometrics. Furthermore, even if everyone does switch over, what about shopping online? We still have to give our credit card information for that. As far as security, I don't think it's going to be any better. In fact, It could get worse. Let's just say this idea gets big. We'll be using biometrics in the name of security for ALL transactions, access to our homes, our cars, our computers, our jobs…. I don't want to be that closely tied to my money and my possessions. If all you need is my fingerprint and you can find out everything about me, that's a little uncanny for me. I’d prefer to have a little more privacy than that. Plus we all know that everything can be counterfeited and hacked into especially when it comes to 7
Appendix 7
408 W09
week_three-topic_two 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322
new technology. Hackers seem to be more advanced than legitimate IT scientists. Government sites are still trying to find ways to protect against hackers.
323 324 325 326 327
I think it is also important to acknowledge that this form of payment is just another option- it's not as if large retail chains will stop accepting credit cards or checks anytime in the near future. It gives people who want to use it the chance to, while others, who are not in favor of it, can still purchase items in the same way they did before.
I think the option to use this payment type is great. I know it would be useful for me personally. In fact, just this morning I went to the market and realized after I got there that my wallet was at home. Fortunately I had my checkbook in my car, but the cashier was unable to accept the check because I didn't have any form of ID with me. Luckily I was able to convince the manager to take my check- since the total purchase was only about $15, she agreed. In a situation such as this, for absent-minded people such as myself, a biometric payment option would be incredibly convenient. After all, it's not as if I can leave my finger at home.
328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
This actually seems like a really cool idea. I don't see any problem with security. Some people mentioned above that the risk of having all of the baking information in one database is unsafe. I don't know about everyone else's banking habits, but my credit card, checking, car loan, and savings are in one place already. I don't really understand the differents of transferring this to a different data center. But anyways- I really like this idea. How many times I've forgotten my check card and now, it will be impossible! As the comment above says, I doubt that this new technology will wipe out credit cards. There will still need to be methods of payments for internet and phone sales. Bottom line, I think that the fingerprint is just as safe of a payment method as any. There will always be hackers and con artists, but people aren't stopping the use of their credit cards, even though credit card fraud is so common.
343 344 345
This idea actually does seems like it has a number of benefits to it. First off, you would not have to worry about taking a wallet of tons of cash with you everywher and run the risk of losing it. Secondly, 8
Appendix 7
409 W09
week_three-topic_two 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354
people would feel much safer if they didn't have to carry around all sorts of checks and forms of ID that are stolen or forgotten in places on a daily basis. You would probably see a boost in consumer spending because people would be more willing to buy things if they merely had to swipe a finger or soomething across a scanner. THis could also lead to problems though if people begin to spwnd out of control with money they din;t have and run in to a large amount of debt. One more problem could be the identity theft part of it and people hacking into other people's accounts.
355 356 357 358 359 360
Like criminals always do, they will find a way to cheat the system and get people's identity (now in the form of fingerprints) and steal their money. But like most have said, this idea does seem very entising. But this way no one has to really use cash, and that would save it from being stolen. No one would need credit cards or have to worry about traveling to foreign countries and exchanging currencies.
361 362 363 364 365
i just realized that this finger print thing may be the answer to all of our currencies problems with making one common worldwide currency. although we would have to accomodate for all those third world countries becoming familiar with this type of payment method and im sure that these recepticles would be very costly as well.
366 367 368 369 370 371
I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but I think a lot of people are missing the point (in a similar fashion to the point about RFID discussed in a previous topic): THE TECHNOLOGY (ITSELF) IS NOT THE PROBLEM - THE PROBLEM IS OUR DEPENDENCE ON THE TECHNOLOGY once it’s been implemented. Consider the number of ways a person could defraud a biometricsonly system.
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383
I completely agree with the above statement... if this program is implemented
we become fully dependent on the technology that supports it. What would happen if the system got hacked-- people's credit information could get switched and reversed etc. The security scare of this program is too important to ignore. Think of how many problems there are already with credit card fraud -- also how EASY it is to charge too much cause you aren't physically seeing your money slowly diminishing. Doesn't it seem like the entire country would plummet into a huge debt because all we need to do to pay for something is a scan of your fingerprint. What about people who can alter their fingerprints through technological tools-- Anyone remember Mission Impossible and the gel substance they used to create a copy of someones fingerprint and then placed in on their own finger... the ways to hack into something like this are just a little too easy
9
Appendix 7
410 W09
week_three-topic_two 384 385
for comfort. And like i noted before, are just adding to the enormous dependency we as a society already have on technology.
386 387 388 389 390 391 392
this is a good thing in my opinion. even the fact that it is getting hacked left and right is a good thing. technology will evolve ways to fend off hackers until eventually something as important as this would be fullproof. Same argument with the RFID chips...they are stupid now, but eventually they will become smart enough not to be abused by hackers.
393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424
I think biometrics is just plain unethical. There are so many problems with using these technologies, I don't even know where to begin. How can we as a society agree to the invasion of our privacy in this manner? How many companies, private and public offices, and employees of these would have all our information at ' their fingertips '. There is really no control as to how many people and places would have access to this information. All those websites with ways to hack these systems is also not very comforting. The article on SecurityFocus.com about the two German hackers who have developed ways to defeat biometric systems by creating latex fingertip patches is quite scary. Then there's another hacker from Japan who can fake fingertips with a gelatin material. Another problem I have is that these hackers from Germany actually contacted these companies who have developed biometric systems in order to test the security of these products and the companies have declined. What are they afraid of? Why not let hackers test your systems? This would give some kind of assurance to the users. Then, in the article at theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerijian speaks about the many places these biometric systems can be attacked, "there are several places to attack, the sensor, the feature extractor, the storage computer and the comparison unit. You can also attack communication between these points, be they traces on a circuit board or a network link." He also speaks about actually faking the information by putting a gummy bear finger with a fingerprint in the sensor, yes GUMMY BEAR. Oh, great! How clever do you have to be to get gummy bears? Something else to think about is the fact that, as the obviousdiversion.com article states, "Today when you get mugged, you lose your wallet. Tomorrow, you may lose a finger." I think that those who are coming up with these new technologies want to make money and have to, at any cost, sell their products. It is up to us, the people, to investigate and inform ourselves against their greed. I agree with a previous comment that
10
Appendix 7
411 W09
week_three-topic_two 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
according to a business perspective it makes sense, but what do we get out of it? I can pay for my apples and oranges faster. That's just not right. I am in favor of business, believe me, but this is just greedy on their part. There is a line that should not be crossed. When people's lives, privacy, and peace are at stake, that should be the end. I've always laughed at my friend's grandmother because she still does not own an answering-machine. She believes it's an invasion of her privacy; the pressure that message puts on a person to return that call whether you are home or not. Somehow, I am beginning to rethink her position, answering- machines were just the start of us handing over our lives to technology. Without a second thought, we give up our lives to technology in the name of convenience. All this time, I thought all these biometric systems were very secure systems; it was not until going to these websites and reading the articles that I find out how vulnerable they are, and most important, how vulnerable we would be if we chose to use them.
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448
* I think that if biometric payment is going to be so easy and readily available in the future that it may be benefitical to use it in some aspects of payments, but not the sole method. Perhaps credit cards can give thier customers the option of using biometrics as an increased safety device, in addition to id and signature. But if biometrics is used instead of credit cards, things will quickly become out of control, seen in the examples other students have provided regarding hacking the biometric system.
449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463
I think that biometric payment is a very innovative way to reduce time spent waiting in line. Not only would it decrease the waiting time but it would cut the cost of credit card fees b/c the money would be taken out of your checking account. I think that this idea should be implemented in stores and the customers will have the choice of keep their old payment method or updating to the biometric payment. This way there will be faster lines for those who use the biometric payment and the people who are stubborn and don't want to change their old ways can still wait in line. This can be the trial period for this payment method and if it goes well then great but if not then atleast someone was trying to implement change and help things go faster. Although some people are opposed to the idea of fingerprinting
11
Appendix 7
412 W09
week_three-topic_two 464 465 466 467 468
being used I think that it would lower the reports of identity theft. Right now someone just has to look enough like you and copy your signature, not even all that in some cases. Fingerprinting would ensure that it is you when the payment is made.
469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479
I think that the biometrics is a great idea. Reading the article got me really excited about the whole thing as I thought about all of the benefits that came along with the system. You no longer have to worry about losing your credit card or money or getting it stolen. It’s attached to you and no one can take it or use it. No i.d. is required; the whole convenience of it is great. You can run into the store, not even take in your purse, and run out; things will get done more quickly and easily without much of the worry involved. Walking to your car, alone, with a purse can put you at risk for danger because of all the robbery that occurs. This will no longer be a problem with this new system, the problems it will have in the beginning, like bugs or what have you will end up getting worked out if we just give it a chance.
480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
I was a little skeptical after reading the article about the gummy bear thing. But as long as the kinks are worked out and that biomentrics becomes more accurate, it is really a great innovation. I think it is important that stores don't completely eliminate checkout people because customers should have the option of being able to check out the old fashioned way and keep thier finger prints confidential if they should chose to do so. If the use of biometrics really does help cut down the check out process it would be really cool and convinient andstores could save money on check out personel and in turn save the customers' money. But, i'm not 100% convinced that it would actually speed up the check out process. Afterall, the check out people are probably more efficient at checking out the customers than they would be at checking out themselves.
493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
i read the article about the hacking and what not...it has its points but still it can all be improved over time and innovation. i hope we get to use this biometrics idea in the near future so that i dont have to be afraid of losin anything. the only thing i dont like is that they know what im purchasing, they will find out about my bad eating habbits when they see that i am constantly buying chips and popcorn. However, the danger of
12
Appendix 7
413 W09
week_three-topic_two 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509
invasion to personal privay and identity theft is an extremely serious matter that shouldnt be taken lightly. Our fingerprints are our personal asset that makes us an individuals and hackers may and will try to steal that from us and use it to their advantage, identity theft is a horrible thing because you feel like your individuality is stolen. Retailers will promote this technology because they like what it does to their bottom line but we as consumers shouldnt agree to it until we feel safe about the privacy of our fingerprint.
510
13
Appendix 7
414 W10
week_four_topics 1
Week Four Topics
2 3 4 5 6
For this week. Let's try something new. Please propose something in which you are interested. I have added links below to new pages. Please add additional ones if required. Also, mimic the other weeks by putting a title next to the link. Follow the link to the topic page and explain the topic or question.
7
Week Four-Topic One
The Myspace Controversy
8
Week Four-Topic Two
Y2K vs. 666
9
Week Four-Topic Three Folding Paper...
10
Week Four-Topic Four Why are we exploring space
11
Week Four-Topic Five Summer Vacation
12 13
Week Four-Topic Six: Does Chapman University Use Technology Successfully
14
Week Four-Topic Seven: Does This Outfit Make Me Look Fat
15
Week Four-Topic Eight: Should I still be living with my Parents
16
Week Four-Topic Nine: Good Luck on Finals
17
Week Four- Topic Ten: procrastination is a problem i have
18
Week Four-Topic Eleven: Windows Vista for Gaming
19
1
Appendix 7
415 W11
week_four-topic_five 1 2
I'm too tired to think of anything good.... Sorry!
1
Appendix 7
416
W12 whether_a_computer_will_be_able_to_feel 1 2 3
to think is to "have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something" and to "direct one's mind towards someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas."
4 5
to feel is to "have a specified reaction or attitude, especially an emotional one, toward something" and to "hold an opinion."
6 7 8
i'm not sure what the difference between the two is, but i've heard the argument that a computer can think but not feel. any opinons on this??
9 10 11
Computers do what they are programmed to do. If you didn't see the short movie on Kismet please review at his site http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/humanoid-robotics-group/kismet/.
12 13 14
Kismet responds to human social cues and reacts to engage whomever is interacting with it. Review one or more of the movies and then add additional comments.
15
1
Appendix 7
417 W13
why_are_we_exploring_space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Technology is obviously our gateway to the future. But how far into the future are we making plans for? I remember in elementary school they had a chapter in our science book about the planets and there were always suggestions about how we might live on another planet someday. We had our eyes on Mars back then. Somehow I think that was sort of like passing the baton from one generation to the next about where humanity is headed. Now it seems like another crazy idea when we talk about using up the earth and having to relocate before it's too late. So I was wondering what is Nasa up to these days. Well they're doing reconessaince on Mars of course and checking to see if there's potential for life. They're also checking to see whether there has ever been life there before. Are we really going through all this trouble to find aliens. I find it hard to believe it's really like we see in movies where aliens have all of this advanced technology and we need it so bad we have to go out there and look for clues. What do you think we're looking for out there and do you think it's worth having a multi-billion dollar space program? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/mission/index.html The reason that we explore space is because we are humans and that is just part of our makeup. Look at history and our ancestors who wondered if the world was flat and then went out to find the truth. As humans we seem to have the need to adapt to different environments. It seems like almost every civilization wanted to explore. Exploration means power and success for governments. This could be for financial, political or just the perception that a country is powerful. The knowledge and techniques acquired in trying to explore space may help all of mankind. This could be in the medical field or in social settings. The exploration of space allows for the brave and intelligent humans to try to find something that may save the rest of us from death or suffering. Space holds many wonders and explanations of how the universe was formed and how it works. Our entire thinking about evolution could be changed by what is discovered in space. We can probably obtain more explanations for extinction and evolution. I think we are looking for a way for humans to evolve and survive. Although the earth is the only planet known to sustain life it would seem that humans can adapt and would be able to eventually live on other planets.
1
Appendix 7
418 W13
why_are_we_exploring_space 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
I feel that space exploration is a gigantic waste of money. I can understand if we are looking to expand our living space on the moon or on Mars but sending satelites to take pictures of the rings of saturn-that's a little excessive. Last time I checked, no one was trying to build settlements on the moon or Mars so therefore, all space exploration is a huge waste of money. That's money that could be going to disease research or feeding the hungry. In response to the previous entry, exploration means power and success for governments because in the age of exploration it meant that your country would have more control over trade routes. There are no trade routes in space. There are no aliens (that we know of) that we can trade with or even exploit as our ancestors did. There might be a chance that treatments for diseases will be found but highly unlikely. As for the answers to the question of our history, still not worth billions of dollars. The only thing we can really get from space right now is knowledge and knowledge about space is pretty much useless. A few little bits on the motivations for exploration. It seems to me that there has always been a driving motivation in the human psyche for "discovery." I understand that the example used was the age of exploration by royalty sponsored Columbus, Magellan, Balboa, etc. These explorers were, yes, funded by empires seeking riches and trade routes, but the explorers were motivated by the ideas of innovation and glory by proving that what they thought was true. On the financial level, space exploration is more likely motivated by the potential for new technology and resources. Power doesn't come just from having land— it comes from the resources and the tactical advantages (such as trade routes) the land affords. The motivation for space exploration on the individual level is likely a drive to create something new and an egoist hope to have stuff named after them... silly Balboa Island. Economics1s1t
I would suggest concentrating our missions to the moon and mars. From there were can expand. There is no reason we should be sending satelites to neptune. Space exploration kicks ass and we should spend even more money on it than we do now! After a couple more years, we'll run out of countries on Earth to bomb, so we'll have to start searching elsewhere! Besides, I want to see some little green men.
Seriously, though....I think space exploration is worth the expense. I personally don't believe that a specific goal is required in order to justify space exploration....Hello, that's why they call it "exploration". If Columbus, Vasco de Gamo, Marco Polo, or Magellan never went exploring, we'd probably still be living in Europe/Asia/Africa/etc. - and their Major League Baseball teams are really lame.
2
Appendix 7
419 W13
why_are_we_exploring_space 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Regardless, exploration is fun and can reap unknown rewards for the sake of knowlege, science and commerce. We can't possibly know that space isn't worth exploring unless we go out there and explore it. And as far as the cost goes, I'd much rather spend money exploring space than paying for Congressional pay raises!
All we need is kazillions of dollars to build the Enterprise and send William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy on one of those crazy missions.....Then we will have some results! **I'm up for anything that sends William Shatner far far away... so you are not one of his music fans.....I always loved those stupid songs he did!
3
Appendix 7
420
W14 why_people_would_resist_this_technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Why People Resist Open-Source Software (OSS) Many people have their gripes about the explosion of OSS over the past several years, and it's not always Microsoft and their sympathizers. Many smaller software development shops (or one-person operations) used to make their living entirely by selling their software. We're not talking about Office 2000 or TurboTax here, but the "small guys" that would sell a 3-D graph or other small utility, ActiveX Control, or other plug-in that they had built for customizing other software. OSS has taken a bite out of the business that used to be for-profit. As the price goes down (to zero), the number of customers who want the product goes up, as well as the number of competitors (Economics 101), until no one is willing to pay anything for their products. Whether this is a good or bad thing is an excercise for the reader, but the reasons for anger toward the OSS movement are valid, nonetheless.
17
1
Appendix 7
421 W15
wiki 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
What is a wiki? Short answer: The simplest online database that could possibly work. Not so short answer: A wiki (IPA: {/wiːki ː} or {wiːkiː/} [1]) is a type of website that allows anyone visiting the site to add, to remove, or otherwise to edit all content, very quickly and easily, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative writing. The term wiki is a shortened form of wiki wiki which is from the native language of Hawaii (Hawaiian), where it is commonly used as an adjective to denote something "quick" or "fast" (Hawaiian dictionary). The term Wiki can also refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a website (see wiki software). In essence, a wiki is a simplification of the process of creating HTML pages combined with a system that records each individual change that occurs over time, so that at any time, a page can be reverted to any of its previous states. A wiki system may also include various tools, designed to provide users with an easy way to monitor the constantly changing state of the wiki as well as a place to discuss and resolve the many inevitable issues, namely, the inherent disagreement over wiki content. Wiki content can also be misleading, as users are bound to add incorrect information to the wiki page. Most wikis will allow completely unrestricted access so that people are able to contribute to the site without necessarily having to undergo a process of 'registration', as had usually been required by various other types of interactive websites such as Internet forums or chat sites.
1
Appendix 7
422 W16
windows_vista_for_gaming 1 2 3 4 5 6
I build computer systems for friends on occasion and almost exclusively install XP Pro (unless we're really trying to save money everywhere we can). XP Pro has been the standard for a while now. As Microsoft prepares to launch Windows Vista, I'm wondering if you think this operating system will or will not enhance gameplay.
1
Appendix 7
423 W17
without_their_permission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
These chips would seem to be implanted with people’s knowledge, and it would be the parents’ decision up until the child is 18 anyhow. However, once they turn eighteen there seems that they would then have to go down and have it removed. Regardless, the idea of a chip that could be used to track you seems a little big brotherish, and very similar to “Fahrenheit 451.” People may say that there are tons of benefits, and right now there are still a few glitches that need to be worked out and that they will eventually be perfect in the end. However, even if they were to be perfect, our independence would be slowly stripped away from us, with a “tracking device.” Our country was founded on the idea of freedom and independence, as long as it does not impede on another’s freedom and independence. Some may say that the chips would allow for more freedom of fear from predators or terrorist; however, by doing so it impedes on our own freedoms – going against the beliefs that our country was found on. When it comes to the ethical side, we as a country believe that everyone has innate human rights just for the mere sake of being human. These human rights are also shared worldwide for the most part. We as a country that often leads the way in rights and liberties and the fight for freedom have a responsibility to direct the rest of the world. If we slowly take away the freedoms that we believe everyone to have, what kind of picture are we painting for the rest of the world. Yeah they might be able to have our medical records, or they might be able tot have our criminal records, but then what is to stop some one from putting up a reader at the entrance of a store or building to read the chips and further foster the idea of profiling and segregatiton.
1
Appendix 7
424 W18
women 1 2 3 4 5 6
In my experience as a 19 yr old woman, I have never ever asked a man the question of "Does this outfit make me look fat?" because a) I would never choose an outfit that made me look fat or unflattering, b) what does a guy know about women's fasions c) I can ask my girlfriends if i really wanted to know d) I would never want to know the real answer from a man.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
I find that only truly insecure girls feel the need to validate their self esteem by asking their boyfriends how they look, which really just translates to feeding their need to constantly know "How attractive am I to you at this moment? Please give me an excuse to ask you how much you love/care about me." I believe that truly mature and selfrealized women can figure out for themselves what looks good and does not, without equating the question with self worth. Bottom line: if you are willing to ask the question, be willing to hear the truthful answer.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Tip: all you Women...A better way to phrase the question is to state what look you are going for, then ask your man whether or not you have achieved the desired look. to all you Guys, if a girl asks you this question, rather than dancing around the issue or not answering, ask her what overall look she is trying to achieve and then if she DOES look terrible, suggest a different look, or say "you know, i always think you look great in your ___". It should work...and she should get the message.
24
1
Appendix 7
425 Y01
y2k_vs_666 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
When the 20th century came to a close many people believed that the new year would cause a sense of confusion and that the computers we trusted would bring about our destruction. Y2k came and has past and nothing happened. Six years later a new scare is slowly building up. What is the significance of June 6, 2006 and is there a connection between this event and Y2K? What do you think will happen? Things like these drive me crazy. Y2K and this 666 date thing are completely different things. Y2K was an actual scare, b/c there were actual problems with the computers. The programers tried to save drive space by using two digit year dates instead of four therefore when the millenium rolled around there were thoughts that eveyone's funds and computer handled budiness would get all screwd up. After reading this 666 article, I think that it is all complete propaganda and has no relevance or evidence that it will happen. First of all, the real calender date is actually off by a few years and so to say that the year is 2006 would be incorrect, but since it has been the way it is for so long it would be too hard to change it. So this 6/6/06 isn't actually 6/6/06. Whether people get crazy on this date and do things that may effect the well being of other people, well I can't make any promises that won't happen. It seems to me that it is just superstition. I had no idea what would happen on the new year of 2000, but I was a little nervous that something would happen. With the date June 6, 2006 , it does not have any significance to me and I don't believe that anything is going to happen. Also, since nothing happened at the new year, there is more evidence to believe that nothing is going to happen on June 6th.
This is such bullshit. people like to create drama. im not one to believe in superstitions because honestly there are so many that if i were to believe in them then i would be scared all the time. religions have superstitions like turnong your shoes and not having them touch, ive been yelled at by friends for doing this. what is wrong with that. personally i think its just ocd not some evil person going to come down and put a curse on someones house. whatever. lets see what happens and just like 2000. some person will probably go on the television and create this into some dramatic story and then the world will be all chaotic like last time. It seems to me that nothing will happen, and that this is stupid, as stupid as the idiots and their Y2K stuff.
1
Appendix 7
426 Y01
y2k_vs_666 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Nothing happend on Y2K, but all the hype seemed legit at the time. I'll admit that I too was a little sketched out about the whole Y2K thing because such a big deal was made about it. Looking back on it, it was just a bunch of people looking for something to bitch and complain about. In regard to the June 6th 2006 I believe that that completly made up. What does 666 have to do with computer programming like the new millenium did? The things that people do for attention!
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
LoL! wow give me a break...666 watch out! the devil is going to pop out of hell infest every computer and bring about the apocolypse! stuuupid. There is no technological significance. Computers will do what they continue to do, improve, and if there's a problem society will do what it always does, fix it. 666 is some stupid end of the world non sense that has people spooked because 666 is the mark of the devil. By now it seems people say the world is going to end every other week. Who cares this is just more bullshit that people with nothing better to do make up to entertain themselves.
62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
I am just gonna go ahead and assume that nothing is going to happen because if it doesn't...great...and if it does...then ill be dead and it wont matter anyways. No seriously its bull****. But I bet you a lot of people are probably going to capatalize on the fact that people are scared of it. Thats what this counrty does it markets everything on fear. "Buy this soap cause you have huge zits!", "Buy life insurance or youre family will be left with nothing", "Stay tuned to find out how not to die." All these are a crock. Thats all this is. But ill tell ya, i might just have to sell bibles or something to teach people how to avoid the devil gettin em.
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Sweet! Another pre-apocalyptic fad for me to cash in on! Watch out, feeble consumers! Here I come to fuel your fears and worries and capitalize on your ignorance. I have yet to see ANY prediction as "grand" as this come true. Floods, earthquakes, bowel movements, whatever... I know it is far more difficult to create our own topics for this fourth week, but let's at least try to deal in the world of logical, not irrational, hypothetical thinking. Global computer failures, alien coverups, end-time predictions and conspiracy theories today can't be excused with the "trying to understand and explain their surroundings" tactics historians have long used to add "value" and "authority" to the nonsense grandeur of many antique predictions and plague-like hysteria experienced in some ancient settings. ~ Masta' C
2
Appendix 7
427 Y01
y2k_vs_666 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
I can completely underdstand why people were worried for Y2K (I wasn't though), because some didn't know if any computers were programed to function beyond that date. But this june 6, 2006 thing has nothing to do with computers, technology, or anything legitimate. If people want to be superstitious thats is fine, but it is just another day and another way to create hysteria. Honestly this whole deal is probably just some people trying to make a big joke about how ignorant people really are. If something catestrophic is suppose to happen because it is 666, then why did nothing happen in the year 1006. Obviously no one is too worried over here in California but if people in colorado want to be cautious that's fine, its just a little rediculous.
94 95 96 97 98
Since the significance of June 6, 2006 is derived from the Bible and the Mark of the Beast, then people should realize that the Bible also says that the catastrophic events will not happen all in one day. It says the events will be like birth pains, with time in between and then gradually pick up speed and frequency.
99 100 101 102 103 104
So you see the onset will not be obvious. For all we know it may have already started. But even if it were to happen in one day, having police and the military ready won't make any difference anyway. We knew the hurricanes were coming, did that help us prevent the loss of lives and damaged homes? Of course not. So you can't just look at your calendar and say oh, it's time for the end of the world and think that you'll be ready for it.
105 106 107 108 109 110
Now if people want to have some weird ritual on that day, vandalize or start a movement, well then that has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, that's just radical groups and internet conspiracy fanatics who are desparate for some exitement trying to stir us up. The book of revelations does not give exact dates either, that quote in the article is a misinterpretation of scripture. More regarding this topic is on my prophecy page.
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
never even thought about June 6th being 666. That was the craziest thing when I read the article. I am not worried about June 6th. I don’t think that our nation will be in jeopardy at all. I do believe that there are extremist groups out there who are taking this day very seriously and probably have some type of plan to carry out on this day. I think some people might think and believe that the antichrist is coming, and they will be disappointed to find out otherwise. I think that this case does have some similarities to Y2K. Not as many people are making as big of s hype about 666 as Y2K. I remember when it was Y2K, everywhere I went people were talking about it and all the time on TV. This is not the case for 666 because it’s coming up in less then a month and I had never heard about it. Everything worked out just fine to Y2K and I’m certain the same will happen with 666. 3
Appendix 7
428 Y01
y2k_vs_666 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
The numerology behind the number 666 is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and wasn't mentioned until the Book of Revelations was made an addition to the New Testament, It's simply a numerological system in which a man's name would equal 666. A mere warning of a man and nothing else. The Evangelists and the various Churches are trying to to tie this 666 into computer chips which is a deceptive manipulation of power and abuse of the scripture. It really just amounts to scare tactics. The truth about hell, satan and the 666 computer issue is just simply in people's minds and makes for interesting reading.
130 131
To be honest with you, the most important thing about June 6, 2006 is that the new Omen movie is coming out then. Awesome.
132 133 134
What was said above about the calender being incorrect is true...if there were any kind of prophicized event to occur it would happen on a completely random day that the puny humans would never see comming.
135 136 137 138 139
People like to be afraid of stuff, they find things to fear and make up superstitions. If something biblical actually happened and fire was raining down from the heavens, the religious people would be standing around gloating so much that they would be consumed in flames, meanwhile (back at the ranch) all the sane and logical people would be running for cover.
140
Don't forget the other important Biblical Numbers.
141 142 143 144
* Are people really worried about the date 666? Y2K was all over the place, but I have not heard any thing yet about June 6, 2006. I was just wondering if someone just made this up for this discussion, or if this really is a serious issue.....
145
First of all, I have never known about 666 problem before read this article. 6
146
years ago, the 2000 was a big concerned matter and every mass media
147
focused that in my country too. However there was nothing happened that
148
time. However, we have to prepared for 666 problem just like 6year ago or
149
more carefully. Because, today, the society is more depend on the computer
150
networks more than that time and under the un-develop nations, the used- or
4
Appendix 7
429 Y01
y2k_vs_666 151
old (compare with the what we using) PC and HD. That can be the spark that
152
touched off the any big digital world problem.
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192
Well, if we’re going to technical about this, June 6, 2006 would actually be 6/6/06 which is way different than 6/6/6. I do not think the devil is going to take over the world in three weeks and two days. I never even knew that was the devil’s number until my roommate told me last semester. I didn’t believe her and I made her show it to me in the Bible. And she’s really superstitious and one time she went to taco bell and her bill was $6.66 and it really freaked her out. Anyways I think that everything is going to be fine just as it was when we hit 2000. The only significance of the date 6/6/06 is that it is found in the Bible as the number of the Devil. I dont think there is really any connection between this and Y2K-- Y2K had to do with technological scares and 666 is purely Biblical. The only thing that is scary about this date is the thought of some terrorist attack or Satanic group trying to worship the Devil on "his day" by doing some sort of destructive act to please him. Other than that I'm sure we will get through this day as we did on Y2K without any world-wide problems. Kind of funny to look back and remember how much people freaked out over Y2K-- one of my friends and her entire family moved out of the state and bought a house where they could live underground if they needed to -- imagine how embarassed they were when they moved back to California because absolutely NOTHING happened. People need to stop stressing out about stuff like this- we can't control it anyway what's the point about worrying about it now? I don’t think anything is going to happen on 6/6/06, just like it didn’t happen on Y2K. When everyone was busy freaking out about Y2K, I figured nothing would happen. The event 666 as referred to in the Bible has nothing to do with the date of June 6th 2006. No body needs to worry about anything and as some have already said this is just people getting worked up about something for the heck of it. Being worried about Y2K is more reasonable that June 6th because this actually had reason for crashing. There was some evidence that the system might fail, in this up coming case, there is no correlation at all, the mere date of June 6th 2006 means nothing in relation to 666. Nothing is going to happen on June 6th just like nothing happened on Y2K. In my opinion, this "666" deal is just some superstitious BS created by some religious folks to spread panic amongst people, just like Y2K was. If you noticed, nothing happened on Y2K. Why? Because it wasn't a big deal. It was created by the media to create wide-spread panic. Did anyone actually notice any problems with computers that weren't "Y2K compliant"? Of course not. The whole label of "Y2K compliant" was created so that computer companies would make everyone buy a new computer. Plain and simple, Y2K was BS and so is "666". 5
Appendix 7
430 Y01
y2k_vs_666 193 194 195 196
Thank you religion for hopefully crying wolf one last time. When nothing happens on June 6, 2006, just chalk it up to "mysterious ways." He'll catch you on the flipside.
6
Appendix 7
431 Y02
your_page_name 1 2
Your page name here! Only 3 easy payments of $19.95!
3
1
