Archive | Popplet RSS feed for this section

Mindmap #14: Concept Groupings 2

Last week’s concept groupings focused on theories; this week’s focuses on theorists (although, to be honest, I’ve not been adding individual theorists for the last few theories). I also added and linked in Social Network, Ideological Determinism, and Ambience as the final three theories we’ve addressed in the class. I wanted to have the full picture of all theories/theorists before I finished concept groupings. And here are the results!

Mindmap visualization

The Entire Mindmap: Concept Groupings on the Left (Popplet)

End of Semester Conclusions

At long last, mapping is complete. What appears above is the final mindmap of theorists and theories as they exist in my head. Coming to the end of the experience, I’m reflecting on what I’ve learned about networks and network theories through this map.

Hierarchy vs. Rhizome: While a chronological mapping of theorists’ ideas might suggest primacy among certain theorists’ ideas — earlier theories are more influential than later theories, meaning later theories are built on the hierarchical foundation of earlier theories — the map reflects a far more rhizomatic relationship among theories. I’ve been as likely to connect theories based on chronological influence as conceptual influence, regardless of chronology. Foucault reflects certain ideas from Ambience as easily as Ambience reflects certain ideas from Foucault. The relationship among theories is conceptual, and concepts are eternal, always already existing (according to ambience theory).

Ambience, a Ring to Rule them All: Ambience is a fantastic closing theory because it sums up the direction theorists have taken throughout the semester. While ambience sometimes seems to present a certain level of mysticism, its focus a post-network ecological relationship among rhetors and rhetoric, audience and affect, environment and ideas acts as a contemporary summing up of all that we’ve read and reflected on all semester. And it also suggests an openness to what will come in network theory, a willingness to concede that we can’t possibly know, or even imagine, that which is withdrawn and hidden at this moment when it comes to network theories and understandings. I connected Ambience to every other theory in my mindmap.

RhetComp Got it Going On: We may be fractious and divided, but we rhetoric and composition teachers and scholars propose some cutting-edge theory (as English studies theories go, anyway). While we’ve not proposed string theory or chaos theory, we’ve willingly addressed the consequences and contributions of advanced scientific theories on rhetoric and composition. I drew as many lines to my Composition/Rhetoric node as to my other concepts; those lines represent theories that either directly or indirectly addressed rhetoric and/or composition, or theories that emerged from a rhetoric and composition background. We really do study all the things — and we like it that way!

The Order of Things: My minds races from idea to idea, drawing connections whenever possible. My internal dialog often seeks to organize the chaos. This has been reflected in my desire to tie things together in the mindmap in concrete shapes, especially columns and diamonds. Popplet affords such preferences when “snap to grid” is enabled — however, because I intended meaning to exist among placements in the map, I never opted to allow Popplet to put content in columns. I did that myself in several places. I struggled to keep the mindmap manageable; this last week, I struggled on my 24” monitor to see everything in the map in order to connect items on the outskirts. It’s time to let the mindmap rest.

Reflections: The Order of Things (above) is really about on-the-fly reflection and my unwillingness to allow ideas to remain chaotically (maybe rhizomatically) related for long. As a writer, I’m an editor on the fly. As a scholar, I’m a reflector in the fly. I seek to place concepts in relationship to one another as soon as possible. The danger, of course, is that by so quickly (and very un-ANT-like) categorizing theories, I overlook potential connections that I missed the first time around. This brings me to the value of the mindmap, sometimes hated though it was. A mindmap enables both node-level focus and network-level attention. I never quite escape the big picture. While I remain locally-focused when adding nodes, connecting nodes forces the shift to global view. This helps me tame the organizer in me.

A Final Thought: Like Dumbledore’s pensieve, the mindmap encourages objective reflection, a moment of god-like oversight. Truth be told, after our readings this semester, I’m beginning to believe that objectivity is false. In fact, I’m beginning to believe the subject/object binary is false and limiting. Which suggests that the mindmap might simply be my response to the already-always-existing relationships between already-always-existing theories. And my place is neither objective nor subjective, but ambient, connected to the mindmap and its ideas in an ecology of meaningful relations. I, too, have a place in the mindmap.

Mindmap #13: Concept Groupings 1

This week is the first of two focused on grouping theorists and/or theories by concepts. I identified five concept groups to which I’ve connected theories: Agency, Flow, Meaning, Boundaries, and Composition/Rhetoric. I’ve included a screenshot of the area I’ve set aside for concept grouping, along with a full-map version.

Popplet mindmap visualization

Concept Groupings, Week 1 (Inset): Putting Theories in Place (Popplet)

Popplet mindmap visualization

The Entire Mindmap: Concept Groupings on the Left (Popplet)

I described the concept groups as follows:

  • Agency: Individual nodes (as opposed to groups of nodes) are given partial or full agency in the network.
  • Flow: There is movement of some material through or in the network.
  • Meaning: That which flows through the network has intrinsic meaning; it is not simply material.
  • Boundaries: The theory offers some recognition of boundaries of the network, either as affordances or as constraints to the operation or definition of the network.
  • Composition/Rhetoric: Theory offers direct or indirect reference to rhet/comp, or originates in rhet/comp.

I chose these concepts in part because several have been part of our inquiry throughout the semester and in part because these are aspects of networks that interest me most. I am becoming especially interested in boundaries in networks, whether the result of framework or infrastructure constraints or the result of relatively arbitrary efforts to circumscribe networks for study or description.

Geopolitical boundaries fascinate me, the result of growing up in Israel. I experienced early in my adolescence the arbitrary nature and origin of current Middle Eastern boundaries initiated through global political interests and will after World War I and, to a lesser extent, World War II. With an Israeli visa stamp in my passport, I remain a victim of those arbitrary borders — with few exceptions, I can’t cross the border into most Arab states using that passport. I can visit Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and UAE, but I’m unable to visit Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, smaller Persian Gulf states or North African Arab states (Israeli Passport, 2014).

I would argue that the root of many socio-political conflicts in the Middle East stem from global influence on local boundaries. For example, the current Syrian civil war pits the minority Alawite ruling authority against the Sunni majority, the result of poorly-planned and articulated boundaries among various people groups with historic enmity toward one another. Not that individual nation-states or regions for specific people groups is the answer — reference ongoing enmity between Pakistan and India — but borders drawn in collaboration with, rather than enforced upon, local groups would surely have addressed, even mitigated, some of the pent-up enmity that has recently exploded in violence in Syria and surrounding nations. Boundaries are deeply decisive in the Middle East as borders, but they are also deeply decisive as concepts and socio-political realities. The result of divisiveness (differentiation) is discourse, and the rhetoric of boundaries, whether in reference to tricksters or Middle Eastern borders or networks, fascinates me.

At any rate, this week I limited connections to the theories rather than the theorists. I’ve maintained a running list of theories in the upper-left corner of my mindmap, each of which I’ve connected as Theorized and/or Operationalized. I’ve used that list of theories for connections. Next week, in addition to adding a concept or two, I’ll connect individual theorists to the concept groupings. This will weave a remarkably tangled web. It might even be ambient.

Reference

Israeli passport. (2014, March 27). Wikipedia. Retrieved 19 April 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport

[ Feature image: The wall between Israel and Palestine. CC licensed image from Flickr user Peter Barwick ]

Mindmap #11: The Network Society

Castells represented 500 page of network goodness, and I savored (quickly) every morsel. I struggled to limit what I planned to include in this week’s mindmap, settling on a tried and true method: I use the table of contents to organize my new nodes.

Popplet mindmap visualization

Mindmap #11: The Network Society. Adding in Castells’ The Network Society (Popplet).

I linked Castells to Foucault, Latour, and aspects of ecology.

I found Castells’ depiction of the network enterprise as a virtual culture similar to Foucault’s (2010/1972) desire to “restore to the statement the specificity of its occurrence… it emerges in its historical irruption” (p. 28). Castells (2010) writes about the network enterprise that it “learns to live within this virtual culture. Any attempt at crystallizing the position in the network as a cultural code in a particular time and space sentences the network to obscelesence, since it becomes too rigid for the variable geometry required by informationalism” (p. 215).

I found Castells’ description of mega-cities quite similar to Latour’s description of individuation through increasing nodal connections. Latour (2005) writes about the emergence of the actor-network, “it is by multiplying the connections with the outside that there is some chance to grasp how the ‘inside’ is being furnished. You need to subscribe to a lot of subjectifiers to become a subject ad you need to download a lot of individualizers to become an individual — just as you need to hook up a lot of localizers to have a local place and a lot of oligoptica for a context to ‘dominate’ over some other sites” (p. 215-6). Castell’s identifies three characteristics of mega-cities in the space of flows, the third being “connecting points to the global networks of every kind; the Internet cannot bypass mega-cities: it depends on the telecommunications and on the ‘telecommunicators’ located in those centers” (p. 440).

And I found Castells’ closing statements about social action similar to a couple of our definitions of ecology, especially to Spellman’s focus on the relationship of the organism to the environment. Spellman (2007) writes that “ecology is the study of the relation of an organism or a group of organisms to their environment. In a broader sense, ecology is the study of the relation of organisms or groups to their environments” (p. 4). Castells (2010) uses a very similar formulation for his definition of social action: “social action at the most fundamental level can be understood as the changing pattern of relationships between nature and culture” (p. 508). As ecology studies relationship patterns among groups and environments, social action studies relationship patterns among culture and nature. This similarity, like the others, suggests (along with the book’s extensive bibliography) that Castells has incorporated ideas from many different sources in articulating this theory of network society.

Once I made those connections, I suggested that Castells offers theoretical, but not an operationalized, theory of the network society; his study of society is used to produce his theory, but he pointedly avoids using the theory to operationalize or predict anything about the network society.

Finally, I decided that the IT revolution is the “event” that triggered the emergence of the network society; without the IT revolution, there is no network society. All of the aspects of the network society, depicted in the table of contents — the global informational economy, the network enterprise, the transformed labor force, real virtuality, the space of flows, and timeless time — all rely on the advances brought about by the IT revolution for their existence.

I found Castells delightfully cogent and engaging. This is surely because of my engagement in a profession that relies on the IT revolution for its existence, but I also found intriguing connections to our emerging understanding of networks as they relate to English studies and to my own nascent ideas about the role of boundaries in network formation and nodal connectivity.

References

Ahlefeldt-Laurvig, F. (2009, December 17). The global society [Creative Commons licensed illustration]. Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/7oxX6G

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society [2nd edition with a new preface]. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published in 1972)

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies

Spellman, F. R. (2007). Introduction. In Ecology for Nonecologists [pp. 3-23]. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes

Mind Map #10: Seeking Homeostasis

Popplet mindmap visualization

Mindmap #10: Seeking Homeostasis (Popplet visualization)

The ecology of my mind map seeks homeostasis, a natural balance among its many theories. My mind map has become, in Charles Darwin’s words, a “web of complex relations” (cited in Spellman, 2007, p. 4).  Well, maybe not as complex as all of nature, but if we follow the formula for the value of a network from Castells (2000) — “the value of a network increases as the square if the number of nodes in the net” (p. 71), expressed as V=n(n-1), where n is the number of nodes in the network — then we’re looking at a pretty significant number of potential connectivities among all these theories. That’s pretty complex. (I had to check: the number of nodes related specifically to theories in the mind map is around 75 right now, so V=7574. That’s higher than any calculator I have access to can count.)

I linked the three ecologies from Guattari to my ecology node. I used Spellman’s (2007) focus on homeostasis (p.15) as a node as well, connecting it to the both the relationship between the organism and the environment (an important aspect of the definition of ecology) and the relationship between Guatarri’s three ecologies. Both Spellman and Guattari invoke the importance of seeking an equilibrium within ecologies or biosphere. Since “it is people through their complex activities who tend to disrupt natural controls” (Spellman 2007, p. 15), achieving homeostasis in ecosystems in which humans are active participants is incredibly difficult.

I focused specifically on the relationship between environment and organism as the focus of homeostasis, but I also added distributed intelligence as a node related to all aspects of the network of ecology. Distributed intelligence, cognition, value — whatever the term we wish to use — is becoming an important, common theme among several theorists. Our theorists are no longer willing to propose meaning be found in a single aspect of a networked environment; on the contrary, value has been placed in the interrelationships among network nodes. If I had to define what I consider a network right now, I’d probably focus on distributed value among actively connected nodes. Individual nodes may be valuable, but in the network system, the value of an individual node is found in its contributions to the distributed meaning or value of the network itself. And that distributed meaning gains value only in its active state; in a passive state in which connections are theorized but not activated, the nodes provide only a framework for potential connectivity, distribution, and meaning or value.

I’m not sure how to convey all this in a mind map yet, but I expect I may center and enlarge “Distributed Intelligence” and start connecting many different mind map nodes to that important concept as I move forward. Castells shows so signs of moving away from this model of distributed meaning and value. And maybe it’s in emphasizing this distribution that my mind map will find the homeostatic condition it seeks (or maybe I’m on the one seeking it).

References

Guattari, F. (2012/1989). The three ecologies. Trans. Ian Pindar & Paul Sutton. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Spellman, F. R. (2007). Ecology for nonecologists. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes, 3-23; 61-84.

[Top image – Narrative Ecology Framework flashcards: CC licensed image from Flickr user Crystal Campbell]

Mind Map #10: Seeking Homeostasis

Popplet mindmap visualization

Mindmap #10: Seeking Homeostasis (Popplet visualization)

The ecology of my mind map seeks homeostasis, a natural balance among its many theories. My mind map has become, in Charles Darwin’s words, a “web of complex relations” (cited in Spellman, 2007, p. 4).  Well, maybe not as complex as all of nature, but if we follow the formula for the value of a network from Castells (2000) — “the value of a network increases as the square if the number of nodes in the net” (p. 71), expressed as V=n(n-1), where n is the number of nodes in the network — then we’re looking at a pretty significant number of potential connectivities among all these theories. That’s pretty complex. (I had to check: the number of nodes related specifically to theories in the mind map is around 75 right now, so V=7574. That’s higher than any calculator I have access to can count.)

I linked the three ecologies from Guattari to my ecology node. I used Spellman’s (2007) focus on homeostasis (p.15) as a node as well, connecting it to the both the relationship between the organism and the environment (an important aspect of the definition of ecology) and the relationship between Guatarri’s three ecologies. Both Spellman and Guattari invoke the importance of seeking an equilibrium within ecologies or biosphere. Since “it is people through their complex activities who tend to disrupt natural controls” (Spellman 2007, p. 15), achieving homeostasis in ecosystems in which humans are active participants is incredibly difficult.

I focused specifically on the relationship between environment and organism as the focus of homeostasis, but I also added distributed intelligence as a node related to all aspects of the network of ecology. Distributed intelligence, cognition, value — whatever the term we wish to use — is becoming an important, common theme among several theorists. Our theorists are no longer willing to propose meaning be found in a single aspect of a networked environment; on the contrary, value has been placed in the interrelationships among network nodes. If I had to define what I consider a network right now, I’d probably focus on distributed value among actively connected nodes. Individual nodes may be valuable, but in the network system, the value of an individual node is found in its contributions to the distributed meaning or value of the network itself. And that distributed meaning gains value only in its active state; in a passive state in which connections are theorized but not activated, the nodes provide only a framework for potential connectivity, distribution, and meaning or value.

I’m not sure how to convey all this in a mind map yet, but I expect I may center and enlarge “Distributed Intelligence” and start connecting many different mind map nodes to that important concept as I move forward. Castells shows so signs of moving away from this model of distributed meaning and value. And maybe it’s in emphasizing this distribution that my mind map will find the homeostatic condition it seeks (or maybe I’m on the one seeking it).

References

Guattari, F. (2012/1989). The three ecologies. Trans. Ian Pindar & Paul Sutton. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Spellman, F. R. (2007). Ecology for nonecologists. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes, 3-23; 61-84.

[Top image – Narrative Ecology Framework flashcards: CC licensed image from Flickr user Crystal Campbell]

Mind Map Ecologies: 23 March

Mind Map 23 March: http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 Creating the asynchronous activity for this week was at first a challenge, but then it made me realize how it was, in fact, another iteration of our mindmapping. Except I had to map the mindmap. … Continue reading

Once Upon A Time: Telling our Metacognition Stories (Padawan Style)

Mind Map for 25 Feb: http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 Story telling — long has this been a means of relaying vital cultural history and identity, as well as serving as the first-ever training regimen for molding the minds of young and old alike. … Continue reading

MindMap: 18 Feb.

Mind Map: http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 This last week’s introduction to Spinuzzi created all sorts of unifying connections to the Popplet! And yet… The trouble is, I have been thinking that now is the time to integrate a 3-D element.  I had been … Continue reading

Mind Map: Class Meeting 1/14/14

In this, the inaugural posting of my Mind Map, I have added three main nodes: The Rhetorical Situation, The Rhetor, and Lacking Connectivity. Each node has related ideas in color-coded popples (and can I just say for the record that I have a hard time thinking of anything but this when I see that word - because I totally had one).

In thinking about class last week, I could not help but think of the challenges I encountered trying to simply join the class. I think it took forty minutes, four phone calls, Facebook messages to class members, emails with the professor, a Skype call, a Skype chat, sweat, and some suppressed tears to get connected.

So I started with a popple about connectivity. I then created a node about the rhetorical situation since Bitzer's work served as the foundation for our three readings. As I began to think about our assigned readings and the in-class activity that had us thinking about the class as a rhetorical situation, I realized that there is an important relationship between rhetorical situation and connectivity. One must be connected to an audience - insofar as Bitzer is concerned - in order to produce rhetorical discourse, for it is the audience who can mediate the situation. When a potential rhetor - speaker or meaning-maker - is disconnected or outside the network, he or she is also disconnected from true rhetorical discourse.

Or is she?

Vatz seems to argue that the rhetor makes a series of choices and applies an interpretive lens to a situation, which is what can truly have a mediating effect on it. The situation can be changed because the audience has been manipulated by the choices and interpretation of the rhetor - the true agent of mediation.

In the Mind Map, I have tried to indicate these connections and contradiction, and I am curious to see if the connectivity node is further connected to future theories.




You can also click here to find the map: Suzanne Sink's Mind Map

First Connections: From Readings to Mind Maps

This initial attempt to make visual connections — a digital/visual synthesis — of our materials this term first proved daunting. Although, I must admit, over time I have become more of a visual learner/thinker than I ever thought possible. For a time, I was all about the text, the linearity. However, perhaps because of my experiences with digital media and freshman composition, the broader canvas offered by visual media seemed to allow me more freedoms. On a meta level, this network as a framing device is allowing me to “ping” on connections in ways I might have taken longer to make. I must say, this is an exciting way to begin. I fear, however, that without Popplet, my walls would be covered in sticky notes before too many weeks would pass!

My choices reflect the primary readings from week one, which — in my mind — established a useful groundwork of terms and concepts with which to frame my thinking. Combined with Foucault’s approach to discourse by examining the networks and “negative spaces,” the discussion of ‘rhetorical situation’ by Vatz, Bitzer, and Biesecker — for me, anyway — helped to ground the more philosophical Foucault into the realm of the practical, into potential application. My assigned “How It Works” readings on WiFi / Mobile fit neatly into this emerging web of connections because they all focused on the characteristics or qualities of the objects — the technological media that facilitates the connections. For me, this layering of materials suggests a need for a 3-D rendering, which isn’t possible with Popplet as far as I can tell. But it would be an interesting project.

ENGL894 Knowledge Mindmap

Initial Connections: Creating the Network Nodes

Cloudy with a Chance of Connection

Cloud Computing, A World Connected

How Stuff Works? Assignment

Image comes from Wajeeha blog.

Image comes from Wajeeha blog.

Things to Know Before Diving In (or, swimming up?)

If you are like me and have a love/hate  relationship (with a lot of cursing involved) with your computer, techie jargon is less than fun to decipher. So, this is a brief, and not at all exhaustive, list of terms (with definitions) to refer back to whenever necessary (which I will probably be doing often).

Intranet vs. Extranet - An intranet is a private network, usually used by companies, that is founded on internet technologies but is inaccessible to the global internet community. An extranet is an intranet that is shared between more than one organization, making it accessible to particular individuals outside of the specific company but still remains inaccessible to the main internet community (an example on the BBC website was that of inventory management) (Schofield). As a way to assist companies with intranets and extranets in relation to cloud computing, Google released the Google Search Appliance, which allows users in a company to search through their documents and other data in much the same way an internet user would search for information through a search engine (though it comes with a hefty price tag).

Client Computer (or computer network) is the physical computer owned and operated by the client rather than the cloud operator. This could be a personal computer, work computer, or set of computers in either the home or the work place that is/are going to be linked to the cloud system (Strickland).

Back End vs. Front End – With cloud computing, there is the Front End, which is the user interface (this can be in the form of mobile music apps like Amazon Player or iTunes), and the Back End, which is the server and cloud-computing services (Strickland; Crawford). One of the main concerns with cloud services (along with issues of security and privacy) is that as more and more users come to depend on cloud services, users will no longer need to rely as heavily on IT specialists, so those workers will find more jobs on the Back End than the Front End (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”).

Middleware is a software that allows computers on a network to talk to one another and is part of the central server (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”). An example of this would be Oracle Fusion.

Redundancy here is defined as the process of making copies of data for backup. Since the cloud is information on a hard drive not owned by the client (think of cloud computing as renting digital space), the owner of whichever cloud system is being used (Google, Amazon, and Apple are top contenders) then makes copies of data to different physical computers in case of a computer crashing, power outage, and the like. Redundancy is necessary to keep the cloud operator from losing a client’s data (so pitchforks aren’t necessary…most of the time). (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”)

Grid Computing System ”is a computer network in which each computer’s resources are shared with every other computer in the system.” This provides great possibilities for researchers who require high processing power from computers than what an individual computer is capable of, especially if the grid system was the basis for the cloud system (Strickland, “Grid Computing”).

Server Virtualization is a nifty procedure that tricks a server into thinking that it is actually multiple servers, “each with its own operating system” (OS), which in turn eliminates a lot of “unused processing power” and reduces how many computers are actually necessary (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”)

Autonomic Computing is mostly theoretical at the moment, with labs like NEC Laboratories America doing research on how to create such systems. This type of system would hypothetically manage itself in regards to repairs and problem prevention within a networked system, which also has the potential to decrease IT jobs considerably as the system would be taking care of itself (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”).

Authorization Format is a procedure that would give users limited access to “data and applications relevant to [their] jobs.” This is a way for clients and cloud operators to strengthen privacy, along with authentication (which is what we do when we type in passwords to Google Drive, iTunes, and a whole host of other applications that we use on a daily basis) (Strickland, “Cloud Computing”). Privacy and security are both big issues for those who are trying to decide whether cloud services are right for them and/or their companies as the client is allowing the cloud operator to take data and store it in digital space (and physical hard drive space) rented and not owned by the client.

Onwards and Upwards to SkynetCloud

Cloud computing, which is gaining dominance in how we deal with data across different fields (such as business, academics, shopping, listening to music, and personal communications), is the essence of a network. The cloud system is capable of linking devices from desktops, laptops, mobile phones, gaming consoles, and tablets and linking them together as a way to store data so that the client can be anywhere in the world and still have access to his or her information without the need to carry a particular device. This does raise a lot of questions and concerns (those in love with the Terminator franchise like I am will be reminded of Skynet without the rampaging, murderous robots…just yet) about security and privacy as the client is essentially handing over data to an outside party who then stores the information on physical computers elsewhere (several, if you remember from the term redundancy, as a way to keep data from being lost due to an accident or hardware malfunction).

Conference Poster for the 2012 South by Southwest Conference.

Archived Conference Poster for the 2012 South by Southwest Conference.

For those who a little wary of placing their personal data in the hands of strangers on a computer they will probably never see, cloud computing may be closer to home than they realize. These systems have become especially prominent in the act of listening to music because a person can buy a song from Amazon or iTunes and listen to it on his or her phone while on the go, or the user can use the digital radio station-esque Pandora and listen to the random song list the program generates and then adapts to the user’s liking or disliking of individual songs (Strickland, “Music Clouds”; Crawford, “Amazon Cloud Player” and “iTunes Cloud”). With iTunes Cloud, users can sync their devices (generally without too much issue) together in order to create backups and share files across devices. Images, music, contact lists, videos, and other media are no longer restricted to just a computer or phone, making it easier for content to be retrieved should something malfunction or need to be replaced (Crawford, “iTunes Cloud”). This has further connection ramifications as such software turns a home into a network as computers can link together not just on internet connections, but also through Home Sharing. In effect, we and our devices both become nodes of connection, linked together through cloud computing systems.

Cloud computing itself has the feel of science-fiction as it allows users all over the world to connect their devices to each other in a closed system where only they have access, or they may extend their reach outwards and participate in larger virtual communities founded on cloud technologies. In a major way, cloud systems are reshaping our relationship to data and data storage as we no longer need to worry about our computer crashing or not having access to documents while on a trip; cloud operators promise us that our data will be there when we need it, wherever we are (unless we are lost on some remote island or stuck in the most remote region of some mountain where cell phone service is non-existent, which is becoming less and less a possibility it seems). Cloud computing is all about interconnections, whether for personal data storage, applications, collaboration, or business efficiency. It allows any device with internet connection to link to whatever cloud computing system the user has access to, and information has become just a few clicks away. This technology, for better or worse, is enhancing the image of the world as a digital network, with us as the nodes and cloud as the connectors.

ENGL894 Asynchronous Activity: How connected are you?

Citations

Crawford, Stephanie. “Does ‘to the Cloud’ Mean the Same Thing as ‘Let’s Google That’?” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Crawford, Stephanie. “How the Amazon Cloud Player Works.” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Crawford, Stephanie. “How the Apple iCloud Works.” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Schofield, Jack. “What are Intranets and Extranets?” BBC WebWise. BBC, 09 Sept. 2010. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Strickland, Jonathan. “How Cloud Computing Works.” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 08 Apr. 2008. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Strickland, Jonathan. “How Grid Computing Works.” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 25 Apr. 2008. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.

Strickland, Jonathan. “How Music Clouds Work.” How Stuff Works? How Stuff Works, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.


Mindmap

Mindmap

Just the beginning, but here we go