|
|
|
start of chat
[IRC server rebooted, some dialog lost]
*** Christa has joined channel #public
<Remulac> Well, anyway, how's it going here?
<debbi> Welcome Christa!
<Anne> We're trying to have an online, real-time chat about technology and
performance.
<Anne> But technical problems are making us, ahem, rather impotent by the way
of performance standards.
<Christa> Hi all. For some reason I kept getting kicked out. O.K. technoloy &
performance.
<Remulac> Are the problems I'm having with Plug-Ins common?
<Anne> What works and what hasn't?
<adam> plug-in problems, a bit common. what are the details of your configuration?
<Remulac> Real Audio and Quicktime dont' work and I can't get a copy of Clear
Video
<Anne> Damm. That sucks!
<adam> what happens when you try and get a copy of it?
<Remulac> I get an error message that the server can't read my message
<adam> foo.
<Remulac> I've never gotten that one before
<adam> Ok, I'll post a copy of their software too. I have it all locally, so I'll
add it to the technical help page. I hope we don't get sued by them or
quarterdeck ;-)
<Anne> This webcasting experience has been one discovery after another about
the potent limits of the technological realm.
<Remulac> Maybe technology is about accidental breakdowns
<adam> well, we did purposely ignore the bleeding edge that we put ourselves on
(clearvideo, chat)
<Anne> We were talking about the relationship between forms of technology and
forms of storytelling. How does one avoid a McLuhenesque determinism?
<Remulac> What do you mean by McLuhanesque determinism?
<Anne> It seems to be the case that new forms of technology allow us to tell
stories in different ways.....and they also provide new "subjects" for our
stories.
*** amy has joined channel #public
*** Signoff: amy (EOF From client)
<Anne> But how do we not fall into a simply formulation that says that new
technologies enable new stories?
*** folkloris has joined channel #public
*** amy has joined channel #public
<Remulac> Is it the "stories" that are new?
<Anne> Ah, that's the very point we were discussing earlier.
<folkloris> No, the stories are not new. In fact, they are so old that you can
retell them in formats from centuries ago and from other cultures.
<adam> (like star wars?)
<debbi> It's the technologies that change the meaning of the stories? Like
star wars indeed...
<folkloris> yes, like star wars. You will die, but I was totally bored by star
wars.
<Remulac> I think it's we who are new
<Anne> But at the other extreme, are any *new* stories possible to tell, with
or without the technology?
<Remulac> Did you see the movie "Denise" calls up?
<debbi> That's interesting, Mark. Do you mean we as new beings, or we as being
new as a result of new technologies?
<Anne> No I'd didn't seen "Denise." What's it about?
<folkloris> I don't think so. Like our literature is not new, but the framing
of the narratives in modern contexts and jargon words makes them seem fresh
and new. Romeo and Juliet
<Remulac> Denise calls up is about new yorkers who communicate only by phone
and never get to meet, even though they are friends
<Remulac> I meant that we as interface with machines are new
<debbi> Our cyborg-ness is new...
<Remulac> I think so
<Anne> Interesting.....concept of telephone pals. A retro version of email
friends?
<folkloris> There is a folklorist at IU who spent a good deal of time studying
Hungarian immigrants who rarely saw each other but continued their stories via
the telephone. that was in the 1970s
<vcg> You could easily replace the phone with e-mail in the Denise story...
<adam> more like chat for friends.
<folkloris> Do you think, Debbie, that the folks doing the telegraph are much
different than those doing the computer?
<Remulac> IN the movie the telephone mediation is very self-consciously
deployed
<adam> I don't agree, val. email is so asynchronous
<Anne> And then are the stories we tell to our email pals, or telephone
friends, new or not?
<vcg> Except that e-mail is an asynchronous...
<vcg> that 's what you just said
<folkloris> no, they're not new. we use email, often, to replace the phone.
<Anne> The point that folkloris was making before suggested (ala Propp--admit
it or not) that there are no *new* stories possible. Only the means of
conveying them to an audience.
<vcg> Some people prefer e-mail because theyknow that there is no chance of
getting another person on the other end, whereas with the phone it's a
crapshoot.
<adam> that's what voice mail is for (though I believe it is from the devil)
<folkloris> Propp was building off the work of Ante Aarne really that there is
a "ur" form of our stories and that each generation re-does these forms
according to their needs and their technologies.
<debbi> there's also something interesting about the mediation the computer
provides. people feel invulnerable and tell their "stories" in ways different
from the telephone.
<Remulac> ciao, folks, RL calls
<Anne> Email has quickly become ritualized. There are conventions emerging
that are really interesting about who''s email you *have* to respond to, which
messages you can bypass, etc.
*** Signoff: Remulac (Leaving)
<vcg> but calling up someone's voice mail directly isn't always socially
acceptable, whereas writing e-mail is, in most situations
<vcg> except when you're going to fire someone, I suppose.
<debbi> It makes me think of the IDT "rec" list. People feel free to say the
most harsh things, they don't realize their stories have a "human" audience
sometimes.
<Anne> And not responding to unsolicited email is entirely appropriate.
<folkloris> That is like who's phone messages you have to respond to, what mail
you have to respond to. It is the world trying to get your attention and what
you really have to respond to. Milking the cows is not the only thing we have
to worry about these days.
<vcg> Yeah, we have to gather the eggs too
<adam> yes, and I get a bit more nervous with voice mail. there's no delete key or
"brain" checking option (it's hard to mispell over voice mail, but easy to
mispeak)
<Anne> Lets go back to thinking about storytelling and ritual....what role does
technology play in this?
<folkloris> tool
<Anne> tool of telling?
<folkloris> tool to tell
<debbi> Ritual form of communication -- technology's way of exercising control?
<Anne> so it is both a subject of the telling as well as a means of the
telling?
<folkloris> tool like a stage. tool like a microphone.
<debbi> medium is the message...
<Anne> I think technology wraps the story in a new ritual. So that even if the
story isn't *new* the wrapping is.
<Anne> Absolutely debbi.
<folkloris> yes, the technology can be a subject. much in the same way that
fast food became a subject in response - I think - to the public's being
overwhelmed by this service industry in the early 1980s. Remember worms in
Wendy's hamburgers?
<Anne> ARGGGG, you didn't have to say that!
<vcg> No?!?
<debbi> Yes, I agree with that. And if the wrapping is new, people will think
the story is new.
<vcg> maggots or just worms?
<folkloris> I don't think the wrapping is new. I think that it is condensed in
form, but that is giving too much power to the tool for the telling.
<folkloris> just worms, Val
<adam> annie, as with yesterday, you seem fixated on fast food. you should eat
before these chats, maybe?
<Anne> Thanks for sharing.
<debbi> fried pie again?
<folkloris> ok, let's go.
<Anne> The point is....
<adam> not to the varsity, i hope.
<debbi> i already used my beauty lotion today.
<amy> Adam forgot to use his.
<Christa> I can relate to folkloris' views on technology being the tool. Just
because
<debbi> because why, Christa? Are you there?
<Christa> Sorry, I cut myself off - damn tool.
<folkloris> I think that the story is going to be told - people do tell
stories. Where and how they tell them is of interest, of course, but that
they continue to tell them is more interesting.
<Anne> Christa, christa, wherefore are thou?
<Christa> Debbi, I use e-mail but maybe don't "mean" it like others. I use it
like I would a telephone.
<adam> crank email?
<Anne> What does this say about ethnography?
<debbi> Maybe how people are conditioned to communicate. I tend to pepper my
e-mails with little colloquialisms, but people from an office environment may
not.
<amy> Christa, what do you mean by not "meaning" it with email? That you don't
feel it's
<amy> as real
<amy> oops
<adam> ok, how much of ya'lls email is personal, chat-like, and how much non? what
are your guesses as to the percentages? and of the personal, how much is you
exchanging stories of you daily life?
<Anne> This seems like a science fiction dream. If I (the ethnographer) can
record a cultural subject/scene in as many ways as possible....not just with a
textual description, but with video, audio, etc. then I could "capture" for
posterity the maeaning of a elusive cultural reality--of the subject, the
tribe, the scene.
<vcg> The bulk of my communication with my S.I. , at least during the day,
takes place over e-mail
<Christa> Amy, maybe "mean" wasn't the right word. I should have said "use".
<adam> (notice I've marked this as happening in the south with my "ya'll"
reference). just keeping things regional.
<folkloris> I think that it says some interesting things about ethnography. It
is possible to document, if you will, the method of the storytelling which is
part of the process. It is possible to document the continuation of
storytelling in all its forms through the ethnography of a person or persons.
It seems to be me, that the ethnograp
<vcg> I would say it''s half and half
<debbi> Interesting things to think about. And who is "monitoring" your e-mail
stories. There's an artefact in existence somewhere that other people other
than the intended audience can see. Also, e-mail is more permanent than the
phone.
<amy> Oh. I use email way more than the phone. Probably because of what Adam
said earlier - there's always backspace and cancel.
<debbi> You have a record of what you told someone.
<vcg> Some people were convinced that ACOG was monitoring their e-mail last
year
<Christa> Email is a combination of phone and letters.
<Anne> Email is much more flexible than the phone....but I still get overloaded
with communication from sources I'd rather not be flooded by.
<debbi> At my last job our operations manager read everyone's e-mail. It was
in her job description.
<folkloris> Can you really capture the meaning of a cultural reality - or are
you as the ethnographer labeling what's been captured as the cultural reality.
What do you mean elusive? To the ethnographer. I think that the people in
the culture understand it quite well.
<Christa> Maybe Richard Jewell had an email account and ACOG didn't like his
use of emoticons ;-)
<vcg> That ties into the Joe Austin's work
<adam> and you can tell stories to one or many (or many many) people at once. and
those stories can be re-told by others by forwarding your story on. usenet is
rich with "net stories", though most of it is humor
<amy> As far as privacy and email goes, I trust that my co-workers aren't
reading my email, but I can't call the doctor and schedule an appointment
without everyone in my area hearing it.
<folkloris> how do you mean vcg?
<adam> but I read you email, amy.
<debbi> that's interesting, amy. I always see the phone as more private.
<Anne> Oliver North is a prime example of a techno-fool. His dealings with the
contras were uncovered because someone remembered that it is standard protocol
for PROFS (the propietory email system then in use at the White HOuse) to make
a back up of each day's correspondence. Simple process of restablishing the
back up data to find his correspondence
<vcg> In Joe Austin's case, he is the ethnographer recording what the subjects
themselves are labeling as cultural realities. Onion
<adam> got paged, brb
<folkloris> That's right. I think that the bulk of folks just whip away email
all day long and when they hit delete, they think it is gone (like forever).
<debbi> I think you're right, folkloris.
<vcg> multiplce layers of documentation I mean
<debbi> The graffiti artists were relying on that un-deletable aspect, but that
was taken from them.
<amy> Probably one's perception of Internet privacy is related to their
experience with it (not saying you aren't, just that many people have no idea
how it works) and knowledge of the technical details. I think being a CS dweeb
may put me into some other category of user. My parents ask me many questions
about these things. :)
<folkloris> You can have multiple layers of documentation, but the question is
are you just multiplying what you already know or are you developing new ways
of exploring a subject?
<Anne> When I was in graduate school (and had to walk uphill to school both
ways) I wrote an operating manual for the UofI's PROFS system. The sysadmin
didn't want me to include the part about "automatic backup" procedure. I
didn't....but I wondered why then, not now.
<debbi> That's true amy.
<vcg> You see it from more than one perspective, if that's possible
<debbi> S/he did't want you to include that info, Anne? So they didn't want
people to know others could see their messages. Sounds kind of sneaky.
<amy> The thing is, people have this feeling that sysadmins have nothing better
to do than
<amy> read other people's email
<Christa> Welcome to the real world!
<Anne> They didn't want to alert people that a permanent record of their
correspondence was available.
<folkloris> I think that is very interesting, Anne, because it says that
documentation is about what *someone* wants documented. We, the user, assume
documentation means all about the subject. Could relate to ethnography
couldn't it? Especially since anthropologists and folklorists have returned
to a place some years later and find their
*documentation* to be quite different than the original ethnographers.
<adam> was it available to anyone that wanted it, or just to the privaledged?
<debbi> So they wanted people to feel that their correspondence was private.
<Anne> Not that the sysadmin would have ever been interested in anyone
email....its just for posterity....or more for defensive saftey. Sort of like
a electronic condom.
<Anne> Think about the video surveillance that caught Tim McVeigh strolling
through that McDonalds. It was an intentional act of surveillance to catch a
bomber....it was prophalactic.
<Christa> I read a statistic a while back saying that at least 30% of managers
read their employees' email :-(
<folkloris> but isn't a condom a form of protection?
<debbi> The nonprofit I worked for dealt with journalists and was very
concerned with libel issues, hence the e-mail monitoring.
<amy> Well, it has huge holes. :)
<adam> oh, no, here we go. anyway, there's now a court ruling in favor of privacy (I
think that is what it came down as) do you remember that amy? I'll search
News.com about it.
<Anne> I meant to say that it "WASN'T" an intentional form of surveillance to
catch a bomber.
<folkloris> so sysadmin as a gossip monger?
<debbi> Who's being protected? The company or the individuals? Or both? Or
neither?
<amy> The court order won't prevent someone from reading email if they have the
ability to, it just defines the consequences.
<adam> (insert plug for pgp here)
<Anne> I'm with Amy on this one. Sysadmin's have much more interesting things
to do than scan email messages....the problem is not in the daily scanning,
its in the compilation of a record that can be searched well after the fact
for evidence of something....
<debbi> I agree with that. Where I worked, they scanned messages daily to make
sure that employees weren't saying bad things about the company or the
director.
<Christa> Anne-I think you're right on, especially in this day and age of law
suits. Lawyers will dig up anything from the past.
<Anne> All kinds of things can take on a sinister meaning when re-viewed in the
context of a tragedy or crime. Like blaming someone's mother for the crimes
of an adult.
<vcg> so what would happen if someone got "caught"?
<adam> I think our interpretation of that flip-flops a lot. it's great to have that
back-up of the do-wrongs of the world (eg North), but no one like to have
themselves backed up
<folkloris> So, you are saying Anne, that we can reshape whatever we want to be
whatever we want?
<Anne> We are the most recorded society in the history of the planet because of
our use of technology as prophelactic.
<vcg> At Kodak I'm sure that they read it to make sure that you weren't giving
away trade secrets. You had to have your bags searched upon leaving everyday
<Anne> What you mean folkloris?
<folkloris> In Matt's terms, so we collect and collect and collect, but no one
sees it because we're collecting for collection sake?
<Anne> Data has more privacy than we do.
<debbi> what are we collecting?
<adam> hey, vcg, that was in a *story* once (charlie and the chocolate factory eh?)
<vcg> We want to know that it's there if we need it, but how do you define need
<Anne> Exactly!
<folkloris> data, information about everything, scientific information, census,
weather, military, etc., etc.
<Anne> The need is define after the fact.
<debbi> Anticipation of the need is the motivating factor. Still seems sneaky
to me.
<vcg> Are people treating electronic archives as a library system - is there
some inherent value in the collection itself in addition to its contents
<Anne> We'll record the movement of every person who enters this fast food
restaurant precisely because we don't know the future. Someone may blow the
place up.....we won't prevent the tragedy, but atleast we'll be able to search
for a suspicous looking character in a video log.
<vcg> Or at least have some footage for COPS
<adam> are you referencing the mcd's photos of McVeigh?
<Anne> Reality television is built on this techno-fear.
<folkloris> Our perception of living in a dangerous and unpredictable culture
fuels the *need to know* an d* need to protect* syndrome. Again, to be a
harpy today, we seem to feel that we live in a non-safe, very violent century
that is out to get *us*
<debbi> Thats a good point, Anne. But fear is based on lack of control. Now
we're seeing made-for-tv movies on natural disasters and wild animals --
another type of storytelling.
<Anne> A few celebrated successes, such as Rodney King, and voila, seem to
prove the "rightness" of guerilla surveillance.
<folkloris> how about the fbi asking us to identify people from the video and
text of the Centennial Park bombing?
<debbi> What about re-mediation? Can people change an e-mail log as they can
edit a video? I thought videos were no longer admissible in court.
<adam> it's interesting to note the lack of Orwell references here
<Anne> So we use technologies of surveillance to garner a measure of control
over a situation that has, in part, been produced by the very technology we
use to protect ourselves.
<adam> I plan on changing my spelling mistakes when I post this transcript ;-)
<vcg> By documenting each case of violence, we feel that we can build a
profile of a violent person so that we can protect ourselves against him/her -
very dangerous because it leads to generalizations based upon physical
appearance, culture, etc.
<Anne> Good point.
<debbi> What about TIME magazine darkening OJ's face? Media are alterable.
<folkloris> Except for when you hear "he was such a nice man. we didn't
believe he'd ever do that. McVeigh defense sounding more and more like that.
<debbi> Defensive strategy, folkloris. People don't want to believe they
actually came in contact with such a frightening man.
<Anne> Yes, technologically mediated reality is fully mediated from the get go.
Darkening OJ's face, was no more mediated that the camera angle used to
"profile" his face for the cover in the first place.
<debbi> I agree, Anne.
<adam> but if we have video proof that he wasn't such a nice man...
<vcg> People use the "such a nice man" line because they don't want to believe
that they could have failed to observe something about the perp's character.
They remove responsibility from themselves.
<vcg> maybe
<folkloris> certain cultural belief systems would preclude that *something was
done to the video*, adam
<debbi> Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors loved him. "He was so quiet and gentle."
They didn't want to deal with the fact that they lived next to a horrendous
mass murderer. It's too much to handle.
<Anne> That's exactly the point...what count's as "proof." His mother loved
him...is that proof of his lovableness? The video showed he ate
McDonalds...what does that prove...that he was in a particular place at a
particular time. and that he was a cretin in terms of food choices.
<adam> so, there is no "truth" in the digital age then annie? if everything is
digital and everything digital can be altered, we're in for one wild ride.
<folkloris> I don't think so, Debbie. I think that there are certain
personality types that people come to trust and rely on that belie what is
really going on.
<vcg> Because it would have said something about their ability to judge
character, and by extension their ability to protect themselves from potential
criminals
<debbi> Exactly, Adam. We're in a constant state of manipulation.
<vcg> hey, that must mean that 7/8ths of IDT students are cretins...
<Anne> We're already on the ride adam. Hang on, its only going to get messier
as more and more people gain access to the tools to manipulate reality for
themselves.
<folkloris> I don't think that my next door neighbor is mediated for me when I
see him or her behaving in ways that are appropriate for the time and place.
In fact, I have no idea what they do behind closed doors or away from the
visibility of their front or backyard.
<Anne> Myself included.
<adam> for a laugh, check out http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~adam/duped for an office
battle over personal pictures
<debbi> I don't know, folkloris. They talk about all the strange chainsaw
sounds coming from J.Dahmer's house, but they told themselves he was an
artist. They saw strange things in his yard, they told themselves he was
minding his own business and didn't want to be disturbed.
<Christa> Yeh, and the teenage boy who ran to the police and told them that
Dahmer was a crazy man trying to kill him. Then the cops took the boy right
back to him laughing it off as a lover's quarrel!
*** Mona has joined channel #public
<Anne> I'm hungry. Anyone care for a big mac?
<Mona> can you bring one to my office?
<adam> it's that time again. food and the end of the chat. are we going to call time
soon?
<Christa> Something about McDonald's and J. Dahmer is not necessarily "food for
thought".
<Anne> Not today, gotta run to home depot.
<vcg> I would prefer Wendy's - more protein from the worms
<Anne> See you tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.
<Mona> i'm gonna go drink. anyone in?
<vcg> Hell yes (sort of anyway, I have to go to the airport at ten)
<Christa> Mona-where you thinkin? I'm at work but will be heading home soon.
<folkloris> night
<adam> to quit, type //quit
<Mona> i'm very open to suggestions
<adam> oops, I mean /quit
<Christa> Wait - the people thinkin' of drinking stay on to get a time and
place please.
<Mona> somewhere in highlands work?
<Christa> Somewhere with a deck preferably and cheap beer. Moe's & Joe's?
Brewhouse Cafe in Little 5?