?

Log in

Содержание

Вступление

Актуальность диссертации . Проблематика темы на текущий момент : обзор работ и исследований. етодология диссертации . Цель и задача исследования. Инновации данного исследования. Положения , вынесенные на защиту. Научная значимость исследования . Апробация работы . Структура диссертации.

Гл. 1 Феномен киберкультуры

1.1 Генезис и развитие

Понятие «культуры» и «субкультуры». Формирование субкультуры в информационных технологиях : этапы, обзор, исследования и перспективы. Понятие «киберкультуры». Феномен киберкультуры. «Широкая» и «узкая » киберкультура. Краткая ретроспектива развития киберкультуры в контексте анализа развития информационных технологий . Виртуальная реальность : ассоциация и диссоциация «реального». Понятие информационного поля, информационных ресурсов и интерактивной связи в информационных технологиях . Социально-экономические предпосылки эволюции киберкультуры .

1.2 Личность в виртуальном пространстве

Понятие виртуального пространства . Философское расширение понятия « сеть» : виртуальное позиционирование и проблемы самоидентификации . Топология
«я» в интерактивной среде. Метафизика нелинейных трансакций « человек-машина» .

1.3 Коллективное сознание в Сети

Понятие «техногенного». Феномен техногенного сознания как психологический архетип.

Гл. 2 Семиотика виртуального пространства

2.1 Информационные накопители и архитектоника виртуальной памяти

Программная среда , аппаратные и сетевые накопители . Доступ , активация и виртуально-топологическая ассоциация.Структура виртуальной памяти .Хранение данных : методы и перспективы развития .

Read more...Collapse )
 
 
22 November 2007 @ 12:01 am
This was an interesting article in the New York Times, and if it's true and the path ahead is "clear" as he puts it, then this helps solve alot of ethical debates... It could however, raise a whole bunch of new ones with the whole "development is reversable" statement. either way, growing stem cells, from skin cells, allows for alot of medical study, and therefor future growth (hopefully) withing the religious, moral, and other complications. I'll gladly donate some epethelials for science.

Link here. 
 
 
01 November 2007 @ 11:54 am
I'm working on a wearable computing project, and I'm looking for others who might want to help, or follow along. I'm interested in using Linux on OTSH (off the shelf hardware aka. cheap) like an old laptop,etc. Interfacing (for now) with my cell phone, and headset using bluetooth.

Please give me your input!

Current work/design/brainstorming blog is at:
http://wearnow.blogspot.com
 
 
Current Mood: amusedamused
 
 
24 September 2007 @ 11:37 am
Answer: They're the curious ones.

Recently declassified news: A Pentagon group encouraged snipers to scatter explosives and ammo, and shoot anyone who picked them up... I'm not joking. News of the program came forward when snipers were charged with using the program to make wrongful killings look legitimate. The military's response:
"'That was done by one of the soldiers at the scene basically out of stupidity. The guys were trying to ensure that there were no questions at all about this kill,' [attorney for one of the accused, Captain Craig] Drummond said. 'It was done to overly justify a kill that didn't need justification.'"

But remember guys, it's not murder. They're just following orders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301431.html?hpid=topnews
 
 
02 August 2007 @ 02:12 pm
It's atleast a start.

Article Here
 
 
 
20 July 2007 @ 09:35 am
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."</i> (Emphasis mine; Ref: Wikipedia)

The above text is from the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, designed to protect our rights from tyranny. Unfortunately, our current president doesn't think that those rights are worth the paper they're printed on. And he demonstrated that fact once again this week. I quote his "Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act." (Reference here. The actual act is available here, but obtuse.)

"Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person designated pursuant to this order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

GEORGE W. BUSH

The White House,

July 17, 2007."


Ladies and gentlemen, according to our president, you are no longer innocent until proven guilty; at least not where the war/reconstruction effort/humanitarian aid/whatever else they're calling it in Iraq is concerned. By law, the government may determine your guilt and seize your property without your ever having heard the charges against you or stepping foot inside a court room. Sure, you may not do any jail time as a result of this executive order, but I suspect that would be a small comfort if you found yourself under its thumb.

The laws of the United States were specifically designed to afford full protection to the accused. Guilty men and women occasionally (or not so occasionally) walk free because of those laws, as a result of those protections. They were designed with the aim that the innocent would never go to prison.

Of course, this executive order can legally only be used against individuals working with or funding terrorists in Iraq. But once again, if the government misuses this provision, there is no judge or jury to protect the victims. Sure, you could sue the government after the fact, but it would be particularly difficult to get legal representation without any financial assets, and with the stigma of a terrorist sympathizer attached to you. And of course, when guerrilla marketing for a movie is deemed terrorism, that doesn't make me feel too safe. And if the government decides that speaking out against the war in Iraq on a public forum qualifies as aiding and abetting, then I'm screwed, along with half the country.

Primarily though, you should be concerned because this sets a precedent. This is the first step down the road to the most significant restriction of our legal protections yet.
 
 
19 July 2007 @ 09:28 am
I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, both chilling and burning, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she says. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."

I am getting used to these moments – when gentle holiday geniality bleeds into... what? I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."


Politics again. No commentary from me this time. I'm too stunned. But that's ok, because I don't think I could really add anything to this article anyway. Just go read it.
 
 
18 July 2007 @ 09:48 am
A highly functional bionic hand which was invented by a Scottish NHS worker has gone on the market.
The thumb and fingers can move and grip just like a human hand and are controlled by the patient's mind and muscles.

It was invented by David Gow and was designed and built by Touch Bionics, which is based in Livingston.


Read the full story.

This and similar artificial limbs have been in development for the better part of a decade, at least. Several have been made available to individuals on anything from a temporary to near-permanent basis for testing purposes, but to the best of my recollection, this is the first time something like this has entered the prosthetics market.

The significance of such a move is staggering. It indicates that the technology has advanced to the point where it is safe and reliable. The interface correctly interprets signals coming from the body and converts them into fine manipulations that allow safe handling of objects - and people. Moreover, this move indicates that such prosthetics are available - or will be, after mass production - at prices that do not put them out of reach of their target market. Amputees are generally not the wealthiest of individuals; missing one or more limbs generally reduces one's job prospects.

I'm interested to see how this product develops now that market forces can act on it more directly. Touch Bionics is hardly the only company researching such a device, and I expect to see a number of others following their lead within the year. With the amount of fighting taking place all over the world, I expect business will be very good.

Among the advancements I expect competition to produce, the number one will be a layer of "synthetic flesh." For all the good a bionic arm will do for someone, it still looks very artificial. Initially, increased functionality will give this device a major competitive advantage over traditional prosthetics, but as similar products enter the market, marginal advancements in precision will be weighed against cosmetic differences. The bionic arm that looks least "artificial" will be the most popular.
 
 
By the end of this year, police officials say, more than 100 cameras will have begun monitoring cars moving through Lower Manhattan, the beginning phase of a London-style surveillance system that would be the first in the United States.

The Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, as the plan is called, will resemble London's so-called ring of steel, an extensive web of cameras and roadblocks designed to detect, track and deter terrorists. British officials said images captured by the cameras helped track suspects after the London subway bombings in 2005 and the car bomb plots last month.


Read the full story.

It seems that neither proponents nor critics of this proposed monitoring system can refrain from comparing it to the intricate network of license plate readers and closed-circuit cameras that monitor the United Kingdom. With that in mind, I'm anxious to hear what readers of this blog in the UK have to say about their experiences.

In a plan costing $90 million to install and an additional eight million dollars a year to operate, security cameras, license plate readers, and mobile monitoring systems, including cars and helicopters will be maintaining a state of constant surveillance in Lower Manhattan. The program will also include retractable barriers that can be moved into place to trap suspect vehicles.

Let me start with the most egregious problem first. The New York City Police Department recognizes that it doesn't have the manpower required to utilize this massive surveillance system. To that end, they've apparently brought in private contractors. So what? The problem is that, whatever beef you may have against the police, they are civil servants. Their training, operating procedures, culture, and - for the vast majority - motivation for taking the job in the first place is in line with the philosophy "To serve and protect." Individual police officers will inevitably fall short of this goal, from time to time, but it is the standard for the vast majority, and the common starting ground. The private contractors they will be employing for the video monitoring, on the other hand, come from a corporation. Their training, operating procedures, corporate culture, and motivation stem from the desire to cut costs and increase profit margins.

Simply put, the possibilities for civil rights violations are bad enough in the hands of those who believe it is their duty to protect us. When we put this system in the hands of the lowest bidder on a government contract, who is motivated by profits rather than protection, and whose hiring and training practices are not open to the public, this could very easily become a catastrophe.

An important note: It's fitting that my last article was about how our new "security measures" operate with the underlying philosophy that we are potential terrorists, not citizens. This new closed-circuit monitoring system is a perfect example of that. First, consider where it is being placed. The city of New York is not investing hundreds of millions of dollars to monitor the high crime, high risk sections of the city. On the contrary, it is being placed in the upscale Lower Manhattan section, which houses the Financial Sector. Consider the behavoir they're targeting: If, for example, a bag is left unattended for a certain length of time, or a suspicious car is detected repeatedly circling the same block, the system will send out an alert.

Now let's talk about efficacy. The article itself notes that security cameras are not effective in preventing crimes. The United King subway bombings took place in spite of the UK surveillance system. The officers were able to track down the suspects using that footage after the fact, when they knew exactly which tapes to watch. A surveillance system like this one is very effective at generating monumental amounts of raw data, but it will take a truly monumental human effort simply to keep up with that data.

Simply put, the city of New York would be better served by devoting even one quarter of that money to training and hiring more dedicated police officers, raising benefits and continuing education programs for its existing officers, and running public awareness programs. Not only that, but these efforts would benefit the entire city, not just the part with the most money and influence.
 
 
05 July 2007 @ 12:25 pm
"If you haven't done anything wrong, then what are you so worried about?"

This was (to varying degrees) the public reaction to the PATRIOT Act, the warrantless wiretapping scandal, and so many other circumstances over the past six years in which our civil liberties were reduced for the sake of "security." Up until now, I was unable to properly explain the source of my anger. I could only spout the Benjamin Franklin quote, "He who sacrifices his freedom for safety deserves neither." Unfortunately, cliches are not very powerful tools for debate.

It is true that the quality of my life has not drastically changed; it's unlikely that my conversations are being listened in on, and I haven't checked out anything from the library that would throw up any red flags. In short, I haven't done anything wrong. Yet, if you look beneath the surface, past the new laws and covert activities, to the motives, it's almost impossible not to be wary, and I can finally explain why.

Something very dramatic happened in the days immediately following September 11, 2001. Our government - the men and women that we elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives, the men we (ostensibly) elected President and Vice president, and all of their political appointees - stopped treating us like citizens of the United States and started treating us like potential terrorists. The attack on the Pentagon, the failed attack on the White House, and the anthrax scare were enough to demonstrate to our leaders that if America is attacked again, they will be targets. Given that they have the power to enact whatever legislation they so choose, it is only natural that they would come together and act as a cohesive unit (temporarily) to protect their own asses, or collectively turn a blind eye to an illegal measure that would further protect them.

When viewed from this light, it becomes apparent that our civil liberties are being sacrificed for safety: the safety of the government of the United States. If we potential terrorists are safer for living within the same borders, it is simply an unintended consequence.

Business is following their lead, with the multimedia associations carrying the flag. The RIAA and the MPAA, not to be outdone by the government, have stopped treating us as customers and started treating us as potential thieves. Draconian copyright protection schemes are commonplace, with some notable examples crippling our computers and limiting our enjoyment of the product. Why? Because we might copy a file. If Xerox copiers were equipped with the same level of control, we'd have given up trying to use them by now. Meanwhile, the RIAA is extorting money out of individuals, and in a growing number of cases, it's coming to light that the defendants are innocent of the charges against them.

Have I said anything new? Not really, but I've presented a view of our government's actions that I at least haven't seen anywhere else. And I hope this gets you thinking about it.