1. In regard to "scale," do modern technologies make this world infinitely large? Or infinitely accessbile?

2. The "missing link" of needing conveniences to be as mobile as we are is interesting. It seems that initially, we were mobile without technology, then we were immobile because of technology's unfashionable bulk, and now we are almost as mobile as we would naturally be because our technologies have taken on such a movement-friendly 'persona' (49).

3. On p. 70, it was interersting that cell phones and other personal data carriers were compared to accessories. Technology is no longer a mere convenience, but also an essential part of attaining a certain 'look,' whether you are a businessman, teacher or athlete.

1. Mitchell describes this ultimate need for power sources which "introduces the need to drape the body with power cords, or...to weave power distribution circuitry...into clothing" Again, we see the problem with our bodies becoming slowly interwoven into technology. Ipods connect to our ears and carry power sources in our back pocket, cell phones with lithium batteries cling to our shirt pockets or are clipped to our belts. laptops are slung over our shoulders. Will we soon carry batteries (outside of our own human hear) within our skin? At what point does this technology stop being a part of our surroundings and really, physically a part of us?

2. Mitchell calls our world "nomadicized" because of technology. We can carry light bags, or none at all, and we can move anywhere while being able to contact anyone. If we are so connected electronically, does this nomadicization force us to forget our homes and embark upon the true nomad's life? Many people are now moving away from their homes unlike they did 40 or 50 years ago.

3. Mitchell brings up the point of wifi, bluetooth and other internet access stations and their vulnerability. We can access any network, but what restrictions are there on networks and how do they effect us? Is the moral standard dwindling, as many argue, because of the internet and technology? (this is similar to the surveillance issue - if anyone can see you and also log in to your network - are you ever truly alone?)

1. I think my most favorite phrase from these two chapters is "I am visible to Google. I link, therefore I am," the very last couple of sentences on page 62. I think this further sums up the discussions we were having last time with regard to networks and how with wireless technologies, we're mobile and unconnected....yet still connected. As Mitchell hypothesizes, we can try to escape society by living "off the grid in Idaho," but if we're on Google, we're still a part of a network. With emerging technologies it's becoming even more difficult to "unplug."

2.I actually hadn't thought about the increasing importance consumers are placing on the "aesthetics" in wireless devices. On page 70, Mitchell states, "But cellphones are increasingly conceived of as personal accessories--much like wallets, handbags, shoes, hats, neckties, and spectacles." It's true! I actually chose my pastel pink flip-phone because I thought it looked better than any of the other choices. It isn't a particularly user-friendly interface, but I chose "fashion over function," (I'm that lame sometimes.) I think Mitchell brings up an interesting point that as the shift toward the body becomes more intense, the context of design becomes altered as well.

3. I think that Mitchell's new concept of homelessness as no longer a question of being without a fixed abode, but rather having no access privileges is quite provocative. I think Mitchell is hypothesizing that I lose my debit card, I'm in a sense rendered "homeless." This seems to be a bit of a stretch though, because I'm still a member of a network.

1. Mitchell criticizes large, public forms of technology like Fuller's weather-controlled bubble over New York City in favor of personal, individually provided technology. With many individuals in metropolitan areas struggling to survive as it is, how much of this "autonomous individual choice" (p 43) is a function of classism? How much of emerging technology should be considered a public good and how much should be left to the market? If allowed to advance without proper control, could new technology create an even bigger gap between the rich and the poor? If so, what should be done about it?

2. Mitchell asks us to think of the radio spectrum as "a communal resource" (p 56). His argument is that with short-range mesh networks, connectivity could spread without needing a hierarchical structure. He briefly mentions the downsides of such a system, mainly "overexploitation by the few at the expense of the many" (p 56). Do you agree with his system? Is it feasible, in either the political, social, and technological sense?

3. Mitchell describes subjectivity for the Me++ as fluid, multifaceted, and often contradictory: each of the technological advances we attach to ourselves and each new network to which we connect provides another way in which we can define our identity. He claims that "I do not have a fixed identity, nor do I exist as a discrete individual," (p 62) as networks and technology provide a new method of existence. In terms of subjectivity, how is the digital form necessarily different from previous social beings? Mitchell tells us not to lament the death of the "liberal humanist subject" (p 62), but was the stable identity ever really stable at all? Before the digital society, did we not exist as a multiplicity of identities, mediated by society and language, which changed and shifted based on the situation?

The mystic philosophers of yore believed that the soul extended far beyond the physical shell. Was this metaphysics, a mystical glimpse of the future or simply a different way of perceiving the human spirit? Because time is only linear to the puny minds that perceive it, there is always the philosophical view that, because in the grand scheme of things, time is simply another aspect of the clockwork cosmos and it's major breakthroughs will find their ways into the minds meant to break them.
Because of our connectivity and mass media inundation, our electromagnetic avatars have expanded far beyond the reach of the meditators and holy men. Or has it? Are we just fooling ourselves?
Is there maybe a chance that the Buddhists, Rosicrucians and other schizo practicioners of arts forbidden by those who fear them just got part of it wrong?
Perhaps we are not to reach the stars using only the capacity of our minds, leaving our material shells behind on the planet we essentially murdered. Sorry, Tim Leary.
I figure the way things are going - with increased implants and nanotech that can do almost anything - who's to say that the bizarre alchemical marriage between Carbon and Silicon isn't at least a far-fetched feasibility?

Trevor Wallace,
t_rev2323@yahoo.comTrevor Wallace,
t_rev2323@yahoo.com

1 - Horses with packs remind me of old mp3 players. I had a 6GB player that would take seriously 8 minutes to turn on, whereas my brothers 128 MB player would turn on in less than a second. The more the larger mp3 player "packed" the "less agile" it was.

2 - "Technology changing us" - The notion that students would rather check their email at a public terminal than have to carry a "heavy" laptop.

3 - "the dividing line between highly functional fixed boxes, and less functional mobile ones" - again, reminds me of mp3 players and portable storage in general. My old 6GB player was the size of a brick (Old CD Player) whereas now you can buy a 4.0 gig flash drive that's the size of a 50-cent piece (maybe smaller).

1) Mitchell states on p.60-61, “…if your batteries run out, you are…surrounded by inaccessible abundance.” Our intrinsic binding to our electronic technologies brings up the possibility of the doomsday scenario present in so many movies- what is some kind of attack such as an EMP disabled a major metropolitan/socio-economic center such as New York? Could that potentially do more damage than an actual physical attack?

2) The body being a fiercely private sphere, how will the average person react to the possible proliferation of body-implanted electronic and nano-tech devices? The sanctity of the personal body seems to suggest that there might be substantial resistance to allowing technology to invade our very beings.

3) Mitchell notes on p.81 that, “We are evolving our manners and social conventions in response- learning to avert our eyes from our seatmate’s laptop screen…” This reinforces Mitchell’s assertion that technology influences us much more than we believe. As our bodies become increasing electronically wired up, sociologists will begin to increasingly see the effect of technology on our social landscape.

-Will

1. I thought it was interesting on page 46 when Mitchell mentions that we go from diapers to using public toilet networks when we went away from public structured phones to portable personal cellphones. Perhaps if it weren't for social stigma, we would use diapers instead, but we would also be totally reliant on them. I'm having trouble deciding which system is more desireable. Do we create personal portable systems when a public structured system won't work, or the other way around? It says we become more liberated, but are we liberated by our mobility or by our freedom from needing a lot of things with us at all times?

2. Also on page 46, he says it makes more sense to store data on central servers than hard copies, but I've noticed a huge number of people who carry around those USB drives, which are ultra-portable, since they can just hang on a keychain, and as technology improves have more and more storage miniaturized to that size.

3. It may sound paranoid, but the idea of the RFID chips scare me. They could be convenient when you want people to have information about you, but it also takes away our privacy if someone were to use them maliciously. A friend of mine told me she was against the TexTags because she didn't want the government to track where she was going. It seems like a lot of new technology is moving in this direction, but perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if it were standard for everyone, or if the access weren't limited to certain people or organizations. Then you could get the same information about anyone who had the information about you.

-Diana Pruett

As wireless networks become faster and more widespread, do you believe portable storage devices such as CD's will become obsolete?

How can the world wide scope of satellites benefit less developed nations which lack technological infrastructure?

Technology is constantly shrinking. Have you ever used a device that was so small it became difficult to operate?

1. Sort of along the lines Mackenzie mentioned, it seems that new technologies are a double-edged sword.
To accept cars is to relinquish a certain freedom of exploration. What kind of tradeoffs are we making
without even being aware of them? How to anticipate and guard against unwanted tradeoffs? Where do
we even draw that line?

2. I forget where, but Mitchell mentions the financial/socioeconomic aspect of our new, connected world--
the Have-Nots have not on a much more profound scale than before. To have not enough is to be disconnected. I wonder if this will lead to the emergence of a larger, angrier, more disenfranchised lower class in the (near) future?

3. Mitchell claims that the new network apparati are as crucial to cognition as neurons. Are they really?
Is there a role for those who stay willingly disconnected in the coming age, perhaps similar to the role played by wise hermits or wandering ascetics in the past?

Ajai Raj

1. On page 44, Mitchell discusses the balance of freedom that we experience with emerging technology. I never realized some of the limits that technology places on us. Before cars, we could wonder through the forest, desert, or what ever terrain there was. Cars limit us to highway networks. Maybe in the future, technology won't limit us to certain paths and we can take the quickest way to a destination.

2. Page 51. And although wireless systems have increased our mobility with keeping us connected, we are still some what limited. Like discussed above, we have to follow technology's certain path. Going to the middle of no-where often leaves us stranded without a wireless signal. Although technology is dependent on where we build it, it also guides where we go.

3. The technology system of radiowaves and channels is a political battle. Page 55. I always thought about it in dictatorships, by controlling the media, but I never considered it in America. I would like to see how this government control is linked to surveillance.

1) Mitchell states that we "may acquire multiple, sometimes contradictory aliases, masks, and veils." Is there someday where we may no longer have to confront individuals face-to-face and therefore, no longer uphold the value of truth and sincerity?
2) There is a price to pay for "electronic conviviality" according to Mitchell, where we may no longer have privacy. Would individuals give up their right to privacy in order to expand electronic networking?
3) Mitchell states that we may no longer have a fixed identity or exist as a discrete individual. How will we come to define ourselves or recognize who we are?

-Will the wireless broadband(s) acquire the same property and attitude the (television) airwaves (which are available to anyone via rabbit ears) have received?
-Mitchell talks about satellites evolving and how they can provide rural or undeveloped areas with network capabilities or at least more developed communication potential. Will these areas follow the same track as 1st world urban areas have or will they evolve differently?
-Will our multifunctionality in the realm of PDA's and other portable tools have an effect on what we do in the household? Will the bedroom become an all-in-one environment?

1) Traveling light had once been essential to life as nomads. It was restraining and limiting in regards to lifestyles though. However, now that networks span the globe, a privledged (or even ordinary) person can access whatever they want wherever they are, whenever they want. Traveling light no longer limits a person.

2) Space is often traded off for multifunctionality, but as Mitchell points out, there usually comes a point in time where the exchange is no longer practical or useful. Are there certain items for which the trade off is always for the best, or is there really a limit to how multifunctional something can be?

3) Mitchell mentions how electronic parasites are all fighting to gain a niche on the human body. Smaller, lighter objects are preferred over larger, heavier one. However, certain items can only be forced to become so small before its original purpose is defeated. But in this fight for space, will these larger objects be eventually replaced by smaller ones, even if their serving purposes are completely different?

~Grace

1. "Governments chop it [airspace] up and sell it" (Mitchell, p. 55) like physical land.
2. Though there are some networks that cannot operate wirelessly, wireless technology can link us to these traditional networks much easier.
3. We are constantly connected to various networks and most are crutial for survival in modern society and we rely on them whether we realize it or not. Mitchell says, "They continuously and inescapably mediate my entire social, economic, and cultural existence. And they are as crucial to cognition as my neurons." (Mitchell, p. 61)

-Ryan