Quoting Sarah Stein <sstein@unity.ncsu.edu>:
Just to add another element to this interesting discussion thread--Langdon Winner's "Do Artifacts have Politics?" talks about how the pure "function" model of technology supports the argument that hardware/infrastructure is "just a tool --or 'just a delivery system'--and it is only in the uses to which it's put--or content/messages that are created--that we can discern social or political impact." His discussion of technological systems that embody in their design power and authority that favor certain interests and modes of social order is enlightening.
elw@stderr.org wrote:
there are certainly a lot of layers to this.
some packets [s/packets/communicative acts] are, by their very existence, messages. (e.g., ping packets or ICMP packets or syn/ack packets...)
Quite literally! The computer scientists conceive the whole internet as a layered entity (the physical layer, data link layer, network layer, transportation layer, etc.). Is it possible that we in internet research need to likewise formulate a layered conception of "medium?"
In a sense, there are many who only see the hardware, not differentiating between, for example, web surfing or IMing -- it's all just "stuff on the computer." For others, finer distinctions become important. Etc. Perhaps our difficulty in determining where the "medium" exists is our confusion over which layer of the thing on which we ought to focus???
Sorry to embed all the above quotations, but I keep rejoining the conversation midstream. I'm enjoying the dialogue as well, and wanted to switch gears a bit from my earlier, non- or anti-technical contributions. This question is based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of network protocols, which I delved into for a recent project on first-person shooters and graphic engines. Apologies in advance for any mishandling of the concepts involved -- I come humbly seeking clarification. My understanding is that in the world of data transmission protocols there is such a thing as TCP, which is great for reliably shipping data from one place to another, confirming their receipt, verifying integrity & completeness of message, etc. The problem is that TCP' reliability comes at the cost of speed, so it makes an ungainly platform for the fast-paced exchanges of realtime networked computer gaming (e.g. deathmatch or MMO activity). Basically, with TCP you get lag, which interrupts the game and violates the various layers of immersion and disbelief (not the mention players' ability to target or dodge) necessary to the experience. Hence the UDP, or User Datagram Protocol, which sends quanta of information more quickly but without the confirming codes and waiting for old packets that slow down TCP. Most networked games, as I understand it, make use of UDP. My question, then, is this: if packet transmission methods are specialized according to different end needs, then doesn't this argue for the presence of the internet as a medium, in the sense that its protocols are made to serve specific expressive functions? If all packets are not created equal, then we can't reduce the model to "the packet doesn't care what data it carries." To return to the analogy of the printing press, perhaps the press *is* just a tool for replicating content -- but if its design includes the ability to handle different fonts, colors of ink, sizes and types of paper, etc., then the "hardware" is materially implicated in the medium's expressive activity. Best, Bob P.S. Hi Sarah Stein! I think our paths have crossed at more than one conference. --------------------------------------- Bob Rehak Department of Communication and Culture Mottier Hall, 1790 East Tenth St. Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405-9700 Associate Editor, North America Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal will be published by Sage starting 2006. Subscribe now for a free online subscription! www.sagepub.co.uk/animation