Back up a second... I have no idea who Innis is, but I'm intruiged by the "embedded reporters" comment, as it pertains to the idea of communication/control/the cultivation of power/coersion... I gotta say that I was blown away by the general acceptance of these "embeds" as the end-all, be-all crux of independent journalism and government/military cooperation. Laughable. The obvious point is that the units were chosen, and their movements were dictated by the military... and a government at war could be called many things, not including "fair and balanced," espescially when issues like security are at stake. To approach non-information disclaimers like "national security" with a little skepticism is not unfounded, however I would have to admit that in a period of war [regardless of how I feel about the war(s)], the widespread dissemination of information might work against "our side". The assumption here is that anyone could be listening, including "them" who ever "they" happen to be. So this would mean that the dissemination of MIS-information would be a tactical move. If mis-information, or perhaps even vague information, is intended to be received through viable channels (otherwise, who else would buy it), then we "the people" would be just as succeptable to false information as anybody else would. To push the idea a little further, it would be advantageous for any government to propagate (key word here) misinformation to its own citizens in the event that it was leading the nation away from its own best interests, to get what they want, to see their means accomplished (even if they believe what they are doing is in the best interests of the citizenry)...
whoa... I just had a vision of a Wells-Fargo van being pulled by a team of horses, all with blinders on... and the driver is piss-drunk.

Thank you for the space to rant. Please respond if anyone has anything to say!

Have you studied this in regards to the internet? For the first time, we can truly choose our presentation of self to others... its very interesting how people react to this freedom.

Hi Autumn,
I just stumbled upon this thread for the first time. I'm also very interested in these topics. I'm wondering if you have any findings/thoughts you'd like to share?

Great article!

> Participation in communication networks encourages us to be
> transitive to the steady stream and flow of communication moving
> through networked participants. Being connected means more than
> simply being online, or being plugged in. It means being in the
> loop and serving as a transitive node in the network. We are
> encouraged less to "speak" than to "repeat," less to converse
> and more to pass along.
This is exactly what I was thinking about when I proposed my Social Routing meme. Current technology concentrates on the "speak" part Social Routing is about about creating technology for theese "repeat" tasks.

By the way isn't it similar to what happens in the scientific world where you are expected to support your words with citations?

Adrian,
I was able to read most of your work up there and I was very much into it.
I wish that you would publish this so that I could have a book that I could take on the train with me. I have trouble reading so much on the screen. Actually, one small suggestion: how about breaking up the 'main arguments' part into smaller sections - maybe titles that I can click on and open up the larger text?

I am very interested in your work on the impact of technology on our relationships to time and place. It reminds me of David Harvey's notion of 'time-space compression' actually, I think it is exactly what he was talking about. I came across it in his 'The Condition of Postmodernity'
The time-space compression thing has always stuck with me as something that I'm very sensative to. (I hate flying not out of fear, but a general discomfort with having my body travel so much distance in such a short period of time)

What about technologies that do the opposite? The only example that I can think of right now are tread mills - you're walking for a period of time without traveling any distance. I wonder if there will ever be a demand for more technologies that have this kind of effect?
(Sorry if this is too off-topic)

Very cool stuff, Adrian. I'm with Eli, though... it's hard to read off of a screen. The funny thing about reading your article was that I was reminded of a new catagory on Jeopardy!... I don't recall the name of it, but it was a catagory about acronyms used online or in text messages to express larger statements. For example, the answer would be something like "LOL", to be obviously followed by "What is 'laugh out loud,' Alex." I was able to get one or two of the questions, but as the category went on I had no idea what the hell they were talking about. As it turns out, I am "computer illiterate." But not in the sense that I don't know my way around a computer. Instead I am unfamiliar with some of the new sets of terminology that have emerged from the new medium.

Nowadays, one must not only be "literate" with a computer (the interface), but also one must be indoctrinated into the new codification process of commonly understood terms in order to communicate effectively, or efficiently anyway. So it's another morphasis of language. I wouldn't call it slang... I don't know, maybe it could be. However, it's a modification of a well established set of cliches which have been compressed by us in order to communicate through this new medium. Furthermore, all of these codes don't necessarily have to have a counterpart in the "real" world. Laughing out loud, as it is repesented in the two dimensional world by its cryptic "LOL" form, is a take-off of the physical world. I'm sure that there is a language all it's own created out of this new technology which has no bearing outside of its digital means of expression. The connection I'm making is that, once again, we are using a familiar code applicable to our physical world (ASAP, for example), and we are stretching it accross into a new world where we are creating (and recreating) our concept of what is real, no matter how physically intangible something might seem to be. This might relate to your comments on the development of the telegraph. I once tried to serenade a woman with a song I wrote in Morse Code. You could say that the message was lost in translation.