Society and Information Technology in Second Life

Wednesdays, August 29 - December 12 , 2007, 4-6, SLT/PT, 7-9 pm ET on Berkman island in Second Life

Course homepage - http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

 

Instructor: Scott MacLeod (not on Harvard's faculty) = Aphilo Aarde (in Second Life)

http://scottmacleod.com/papers.htm

 

 

Nov 28 2007 Soc and Info Tech Class Transcript

 

 

 

[16:00]  Andromeda Mesmer: Hi Aphilo.

[16:00]  Geda Hax: hi there Ap

[16:00]  You: HelloAll

[16:00]  Andromeda Mesmer: Hi Rain

[16:00]  Ralph Radius is Online

[16:00]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Aphilo

[16:00]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Rain

[16:00]  Andromeda Mesmer: Nauka should show up too.

[16:01]  You: Hi Cindy

[16:01]  Cindy Ecksol: hi, aphilo

[16:01]  Rain Ninetails: Hi every one

[16:01]  You: Welcome to Society and Information Technology

[16:01]  Geda Hax: hi all

[16:01]  Ralph Radius: Hi all

[16:01]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Ralph

[16:01]  Rain Ninetails: this is my friend Sonja

[16:01]  You: Here's the wiki's address: http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

[16:01]  Ralph Radius: Hi Boston

[16:01]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Sonja

[16:01]  Sonja Strom: hi

[16:01]  You: Hi Sonja!

[16:01]  Andromeda Mesmer: Hi Sonja

[16:01]  Cindy Ecksol: guess I'll join the crowd

[16:02]  Rain Ninetails: :)

[16:02]  Ralph Radius: Hi Cindy

[16:02]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Cindy

[16:02]  Cindy Ecksol: hi ralph, all...

[16:03]  You: So tonight I'd like to talk a little about a kind of new global geometry, that is a consequence of information technology

[16:03]  You: As I've said before, discussion is interesting in Second Life -

[16:03]  You: the chatting technologies

[16:03]  Geda Hax is Offline

[16:04]  You: offer new ways to communicate - by allowing people to carry on multiple conversations . . . so I encourage people to ask questions, and share knowledge about the subject

[16:04]  You: so how has globalization really changed the world?

[16:05]  Geda Hax is Online

[16:05]  You: One used to have a siuation where the 1st world was capitalist,

[16:05]  You: the second world was socialist

[16:05]  You: and then there was a third world

[16:06]  You: But globalization has led to a disintergration of the 2nd and 3rd

[16:06]  You: And the 3rd world itself became divided

[16:06]  You: Some of it integrated with the 1st world

[16:06]  You: For example, Bangalore and Buenos Aires

[16:07]  You: It was the still the same world, but they became part of the global internet

[16:07]  You: And on the other hand, such places also disconnected part of their population.

[16:08]  You: In the 1st world, large segments of the population are also excluded

[16:08]  You: In the U.S. world o fcriminal justice

[16:08]  You: of the 6 million there, 3 million are locked up and

[16:08]  You: 3 million are on parole

[16:09]  You: And for about 3% of the adult male populaiton

[16:09]  You: It's very difficult to get out

[16:09]  You: Of those between 16 and 50 years old, 1/3 have gone some way in the system

[16:09]  Cindy Ecksol: Excuse me, Aphilo -- you say larg segments of the population are excluded --- but excluded from what?

[16:10]  You: From the access to the internet, and the benefits of globalization. So people who are rejected in the 1st world

[16:10]  You: in the 1st world live in the 4th world - which is a world of exclusion

[16:10]  Annette Paster is Online

[16:11]  You: So what's significant about teh first world, as well as new, is that they are mad e up of networks

[16:11]  You: And the 4th world is now a world of exclusion

[16:12]  You: Now I'd like to examine the Business Model in the New Economy, and return to inequality and exclusion later

[16:12]  You: Is connection /disconnection the only choice are are there other forms of disconnection?

[16:12]  You: If disconnected one finds a different way of life

[16:12]  You: Hi KZ

[16:13]  You: "Don't bother me with technology, consumer goods, etc."

[16:13]  You: And those who jump in, and most do, benefit

[16:13]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Offline

[16:14]  You: And to explain the improverished, and their philosoph yof resignation and the spiritual comfort they seek, elites develop theoires of alination

[16:14]  Cindy Ecksol: that's a pretty "first world" analysis, isn't it? or maybe I should say it's a capitalist analysis...

[16:14]  Cindy Ecksol: as in "economic growth and progress is always better than the status quo"

[16:15]  You: What' significant about this capitalism is that it is based around informaiton technologies

[16:16]  Cindy Ecksol: well, one can't deny that capitalism has taken great advantage of information technologies. but non-capitalist societies at various times in the 20th century have done the same

[16:16]  You: For anyone who is interested, I can refer you to an article by Manuel Castells which explains what is new

[16:16]  You: Also previous talks which I've posted on the wiki examine this as well.

[16:16]  Daisyblue Hefferman is Online

[16:16]  Rebecca Berkman is Online

[16:17]  You: Yes, good points, but the Network Society starts with the computing microelectronics, and telecommunications.

[16:18]  You: And leads to the Internet, and Socialist countries have adopted these rewriting old geometries

[16:18]  You: in very new ways.

[16:18]  KZ Hawker: not lost, don't know how to work this! newbie!!

[16:18]  You: (I do post these talks and conversations on the wiki)

[16:19]  Sonja Strom: trying to sit, KZ?

[16:19]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Online

[16:19]  Boston Hutchinson: KZ, If you want to stay for class, you can right click a chair and select sit.

[16:19]  You: So another key aspect of globalization, a direct result of these inforamtion technoloies is a global criminal economy

[16:20]  You: which includes drugs, and smuggling, for exmaple, including in humans.

[16:20]  Boston Hutchinson: Class website: http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

[16:20]  You: And if connected , not everybody uses the same model

[16:20]  You: For example, 2 exmaple of connection in Chile, illustrate this

[16:21]  You: IN the 1970s through 1989, during the Pinochet dictatorship

[16:21]  You: there was no distribution, and the poor remained so

[16:21]  You: in the1990s, a dynamic model arose

[16:21]  You: where a democratic governement hast come to listen to people

[16:21]  You: Income was redistributed

[16:22]  You: And health and social programs created internal markets

[16:22]  You: which multipled by a high rate of growth,

[16:23]  You: While one doesn't have to be tied to a liberalizing economy to experience growth, all growth depends on foreign investors

[16:23]  Sonja Strom: why is that?

[16:24]  Sonja Strom: KZ, try to right-click on your mouse :-)

[16:24]  You: Growth in infomrmation capitalism is shaped by networks

[16:24]  matrix05 Infinity is Offline

[16:24]  You: And growth in this sense means profits

[16:25]  KZ Hawker: I don't have a mouse! I have a mac trackpad on my laptop!

[16:25]  Cindy Ecksol: profits in information capital or in monetary capital

[16:25]  You: fincancial

[16:25]  Sonja Strom: oh... sorry I don't know how to do it that way.

[16:26]  You: Don't know how to do it which way?

[16:26]  Rain Ninetails: sit with a Mac

[16:26]  Rain Ninetails: :) trackpad

[16:27]  Cindy Ecksol: sonja is a little confused -- I'm giving her a hand via IM but she hasn't quite got it yet...

[16:27]  KZ Hawker: bye, sorry for interrupting, I'll leave until I know how to do this! thanks, sorry again!

[16:27]  jeanrem Beebe is Offline

[16:27]  You: So to return to the transfomration of the business model

[16:27]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[16:28]  Andromeda Mesmer: KZ - join the Macintosh group -- there are Macintosh computer users and I am one.

[16:28]  Andromeda Mesmer: But I do not have a trackball so I can't help.

[16:28]  You: including a fundamental analysis of micro transformations

[16:28]  KZ Hawker: ok I'll look for it

[16:28]  Andromeda Mesmer: You can stand and stay here -- you don't have to sit.

[16:28]  You: What is new in the how businesses operated and why is the form of the buseinsses operated

[16:29]  You: In the past small companies become large.

[16:29]  You: A vertical hierarchy took shape

[16:29]  You: You had a ceo, general managers, departments.

[16:29]  You: And all would compete with similarly structured companies

[16:30]  You: And corporations used to bec concentreated in a particular industry

[16:30]  You: And on the surface, it still looks like this, but it's now on the basis of networks.

[16:30]  You: The following trends have been significant in thte last 10 years.

[16:30]  Mystique Littlething: hi

[16:31]  You: 1) Major corporations have become internally decnentralized to each department / division.

[16:31]  You: to the point where some divisions compete with each other

[16:31]  You: And loyalty is to your unit

[16:31]  jeanrem Beebe is Online

[16:32]  You: For example, an IBM division would buy outside its divisions, not In IBM, if it found a better price. And the division it bought had to be the best

[16:32]  You: So IBM created little IBMs - little reptiles

[16:32]  Cindy Ecksol: hmmmm....what makes you think this is a real change?

[16:33]  You: And IBMs very hierarchical structure was transformed

[16:33]  Cindy Ecksol: I ask this from the perspective of one who spent many years at IBM....

[16:33]  Jagger Valeeva is Offline

[16:33]  Cindy Ecksol: from the inside, it was not a significant change: the goal was still to grow big and fast, competing for resources with other units all the way...

[16:33]  You: Waht changed was a form of horizontal business practice, that reflected easier access to information, and the power of processing that information

[16:34]  You: Yes

[16:34]  Andromeda Mesmer: Aphilo -- that can happen with government divisions too -- e.g. the city department of planning may do printing inhouse, or may go to an outside printer.

[16:34]  Cindy Ecksol: and power too, I might add -- shifts in power were the most avidly watched.

[16:34]  You: Yes, but governemtn divisions are more stable, partly because they aren't profit oriented, per se. So corporate units

[16:34]  You: YEs, Cindy

[16:35]  Cindy Ecksol: well, I think your analysis is relying too much on the view from the outside. from the inside it did not change as much as you might imagine even after Gerstner took over

[16:35]  You: Those corporate units which had autnomy, needed good results

[16:35]  You: to reward shareholders

[16:35]  Cindy Ecksol: and even there what caused the change was drastic downsizing: many fewer people to get the same work done caused everyone to look for easier ways to get it done

[16:36]  You: The second thing that occrred was that small and medium business became more competitive

[16:36]  You: True

[16:36]  You: And these small and medium businesses formed networks among themselves,

[16:36]  You: while remaining autnomous businesses.

[16:36]  Cindy Ecksol: there was no significant change in the information infrastructure between about 1985 and today -- by 1985 IBM already had a robust information network and all "knowldege" employees had access to it.

[16:37]  jeanrem Beebe is Offline

[16:37]  You: IBM was profoundly transformed by the IT revolution

[16:37]  You: they saw the lure of personal computing in the 1960s

[16:38]  Cindy Ecksol: yes, but that transformation began in the '70's and the changes you are talking about (the restructuring) took place after 1993

[16:38]  Geda Hax: Cindy , are you still an IBMer ?

[16:38]  You: transformed their very staid aproach to business decisions, relying on multiple committees

[16:38]  Cindy Ecksol: no, but still have lots of contacts there.

[16:38]  Geda Hax: I see

[16:38]  Perry Proudhon is Offline

[16:38]  You: bought an operating system that didnt' exist at teh time, from Microsoft

[16:38]  jeanrem Beebe is Online

[16:39]  You: And Microsoft also licensed the rights to this to other companies

[16:39]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[16:40]  You: And IBM became a very insignificant player in the pC business in the 1980s

[16:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn is Online

[16:40]  Cindy Ecksol: that decision happened LONG before the restructuring: that was 1980, and the restructuring didn't really begin until 1993

[16:40]  You: because they didn't do their homework, basically.

[16:40]  You: And what came out of this IT revolution was a very different IBM

[16:41]  whiteboard: unknown message: help

[16:41]  You: Infomration Technology reshaped IBM into a series of departments and divisions

[16:42]  Cindy Ecksol: well, I think you're asserting that from a very limited view with very little data. it wasn't about information technology, it was about power....

[16:42]  You: To give an example ways compnaies transform and can take advantage of this new environment, which is much more horizontal

[16:43]  You: . . . Take Hong Kon, for example and the cabbage patch dol

[16:43]  Diego Ibanez is Offline

[16:43]  You: Cabbage patch dolls were up for adoption in the 80s

[16:44]  You: it was ugly and didnt' appeal to children with maternal and paternal instincts

[16:44]  You: Initiutally it wa s huge success, but the company that desingned fogot about manufacturing.

[16:45]  You: Someone told them that a HK company reseisng the cabbage patch dolls - and producec 200000 a week - And networks of companies did it

[16:45]  You: The company became successful, and the networks dissolved

[16:46]  You: So what is new is that the flexibility of network capacity on a global scale insured this Hong Kong success story.

[16:46]  You: And this has led to more flexible subsidiaries of large corporations

[16:46]  You: So to finish examining the NEW ECONOMY

[16:47]  You: There are three characteristics

[16:47]  You: 1) A GLOBAL ECONOMY

[16:47]  You: @) A Network Economy

[16:47]  You: 3) and new forms of economic activity based on information and knowledge

[16:48]  You: The processes that organize new informaiton economy are based on, for example,microelectronics

[16:49]  You: And we've also examined 1) the working of financial markets

[16:49]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[16:49]  You: 2) analysis of nteworking as organizational forms of the new economy -

[16:49]  You: And the foundation of work, the economy and society

[16:50]  You: is Work - it's the basis - the reason we're here

[16:50]  You: producing, management, selling

[16:50]  You: What is new in business operations is a shift to networking, as the most adaptable form

[16:51]  You: And so far, these significant networking developments include

[16:51]  You: 1) decnetralization of major corporations

[16:51]  You: 2) integration of smalle and medium businesses for reasons of flexiblity and resource sombination

[16:52]  You: 3) and large corproations served in their need by these very flexible and rast small and medium companies

[16:53]  You: And horizoantla processes become much more significant, rather than hierarchically structured divisions

[16:54]  You: And small and medium businesses that connet to each other , as netwokrs, created synergies

[16:54]  You: Netwrks work by producing parts and services for decentralized unites of corporations

[16:55]  You: And Large corporations don't work exactly like above, and they don't work like they did efore the semiconductor developed in the 50s and 60s

[16:55]  You: They are all in strategic allicance

[16:55]  You: IBM, Toshiba, and Siemens

[16:56]  You: for example, set up joint ventures to produce chips

[16:56]  You: competing in other areas around teh world, but working toether in this specific area

[16:56]  You: They joined resources for this particular project

[16:57]  You: Tehy still have the same unique systems that make up IBM and Siemens,

[16:57]  You: but they joined together to produce 1 telecom chip

[16:57]  You: Each one has an internally decentralized strucutre.

[16:57]  You: And each one of these has netwokrs of small and medium business that becomes one unit - for a business project

[16:58]  You: So the operation unit is now the business project

[16:58]  You: and this makes decisions on sales, marketing,etc.

[16:58]  You: And this applies to a braod range of companies.

[16:58]  You: Does vertical integration still exist?

[16:58]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Offline

[16:59]  You: Yes, the more companies persist in this model, the more transitions come from the top

[16:59]  You: But New High technology adn finance companies start with a new model

[16:59]  You: And auto companies have big trouble

[17:00]  You: Ford, for example, a key companycouldn't transfer Fordism

[17:00]  You: the particularl form of total control

[17:00]  You: over manufacturing and rpoduction based on

[17:00]  You: huge efficiencies due to assembly lines

[17:00]  Diego Ibanez is Online

[17:00]  You: and standardizaiton and bringing down costs

[17:01]  You: Ford says"Our customers are kins and will get the produce they want as long as its a model T and black"

[17:01]  You: Fordism is based on a slow chagning market

[17:01]  You: For a fast market, networking is significant

[17:01]  jeanrem Beebe is Offline

[17:02]  Cindy Ecksol: well, once again I think you're making some rather broad statements based on very little fact.

[17:02]  You: We have interal networks connected to external networks, and arranged in an alliance of alliances

[17:02]  You: (Please glance over the transcripts from previous classes).

[17:02]  Cindy Ecksol: Toyota in the 70's and '80's was no more nor less a "networking company" than Ford or GM, yet Toyota survived and thrived (is still thriving) in an environment where Ford, Chrysler and GM struggled.

[17:03]  matrix05 Infinity is Offline

[17:03]  Cindy Ecksol: and what caused Toyota (and many other Japanese companies) to thrive was not networking but a way of focusing on quality that could be (and was at first) implemented by a worker at the lowest level with no more "technology" than pen and paper and the usual measuring tools.

[17:04]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[17:04]  You: What we're examining here is the far reaching effects of the information technology revolution which have also effecte thiese companies, in the way they interact in the global market, but informaiton technology compnaies, and fincnace companies have been most significant in these changes.

[17:04]  Cindy Ecksol: yes, this was a survival that was about "information" but it was definitely NOT about technology -- that came much later.

[17:05]  Robyn Proto is Online

[17:05]  Cindy Ecksol: And, I might add, the US auto companies failed miserably at "factory automation" while the Japanese made it pay off.

[17:05]  Cindy Ecksol: the reason for that had nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with information

[17:05]  You: So the networking is the basis of the new economy

[17:05]  Cindy Ecksol: and nothing to do with networking either....

[17:05]  Cindy Ecksol: or maybe very little :-)

[17:06]  You: art of the reason these companies were successful was becasue they were more flexible, and drew from small an dmedium companies in more sophisticaed ways from infomraiton and parts.

[17:06]  You: So the old model was Ford

[17:07]  You: And the new model is Cisco systems

[17:07]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Online

[17:07]  You: It's the 'purest" example of a networking business model

[17:07]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[17:07]  You: Cisco was the most valuable manufacturing company in terms of market capita avluation

[17:08]  You: At its peak in Apirl 2000, it was worth 400 billions dollars

[17:08]  You: And it fell to 200 billion dollars in teh sapce of a few months.

[17:08]  Meryl Villota is Online

[17:08]  You: Cisco produces routersa nd switche computers

[17:08]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Offline

[17:08]  You: They run the traffic of the Internet

[17:09]  You: - they produce the plumbing of the Intenret

[17:09]  You: And contrlled 87% of the market

[17:09]  Andromeda Mesmer: Aphilo -- that was a bubble stock market valuation -- not a "real" value for Cisco.

[17:09]  You: This is a company that started in 1984

[17:09]  You: at Stanford

[17:10]  You: Yes, A, but it is also illustrative of the remarkable change in valuations that occurred as a consequence of networking.

[17:10]  You: And ciso is a compnay that applied to its wrkings, what the rest of the company made

[17:11]  You: The cisco web stie list products -computer gear for the Internet

[17:11]  You: as well as their specificantions

[17:11]  You: And customers slect what they want, from teh list posted on Cisco's web site.

[17:12]  You: And Cisco's network of suppliers are world wide

[17:12]  You: This is not vertical integration

[17:13]  You: Supply and demand meet on the WWW directly and the supplier ships directly.

[17:13]  You: And in 2000 Cisco handled 87% of its business over the WWW - on the order of 40million /day

[17:13]  You: Adn 2/3 of this was done automatically

[17:13]  You: So what Cisco sells is engineering

[17:14]  You: Tehy sell fabrication procedures

[17:14]  Meryl Villota is Offline

[17:14]  You: that control this process

[17:14]  You: they sell specificaitons

[17:14]  You: And they have an automated system which checks

[17:14]  You: They incorporat lots of automated knolwedge

[17:15]  You: So they produce knowledge and automate it.

[17:15]  You: And Cisco also applies the procedure to itself.

[17:15]  Jon Seattle is Offline

[17:15]  You: Let's take a break here, and come back in 7 minutes . . . and we can chat a little before proceeding.

[17:15]  You: :)

[17:16]  Andromeda Mesmer: OK. Break time -

[17:16]  Sonja Strom: I have a question.

[17:17]  Rain Ninetails: :)

[17:17]  Rain Ninetails: Ap may be afk ..

[17:18]  Rain Ninetails: heh

[17:20]  Sean18 McCarey is Online

[17:20]  You: Yes Sonja,

[17:20]  You: What's your question?

[17:21]  Sonja Strom: How does this shift in networking effect the way wars are fought?

[17:21]  You: Good question - informaiton technology rewarties warfare significantly

[17:22]  You: For one, smart weapons

[17:23]  You: are now used in relation to command and control centers,

[17:23]  You: (I'm going to take a breief detour from wyas in which knowledge and IT reshape buisness practices)

[17:23]  Rebecca Berkman is Offline

[17:23]  You: An old signficant model of warfare

[17:24]  You: was often predicated on long supply lines, which suported men on both sides of a conflict

[17:26]  You: And war involved fighting till one side lost -which often included access to new resources

[17:26]  You: The new model - the argument for it -

[17:27]  You: involves smart weapons, which are used unilaterally to establish total superiority over command and control cetners - both information based

[17:28]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm thinking back on one of Cindy's comments--about a Toyota worker who picked up a pencil and started a quality revolution. It seems to me that this suggests that the bottom-up innovation and decentraliztion preceded networking. Is it possible that networking facilitated something that was already happening, or even that changing business models shaped the development of the networks?

[17:28]  You: Then, often, a publicity campaign - also informaiton based - to persuade an opponent to move toward democratic processes, where they retain sovereignty

[17:28]  Cindy Ecksol: aphilo, I can't imagine how you can justify that assertion, especially given what we're seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Darfur....need I expand further?

[17:28]  Cindy Ecksol: right on, Boston -- the analogy is perfect.

[17:28]  You: And the resulting lessening of mortality

[17:29]  You: And if You look at the Persian Gulf (I'll respond ina moment

[17:29]  Cindy Ecksol: technology was not the main weapon in the Japanese dominance over US manufacturing, nor is it the determining factor in today's wars.

[17:30]  You: smart weaapons were suedto this effect, and mortality on the side of the West was 148 near this

[17:31]  You: Compare that with teh last siginficant war in terms of mortality - the Ameriican War in Vietnam, where aroudn 60,000 people Americans dies and 1-2 illion vietnamese died

[17:32]  You: In the American war in Iraq, mortality is similarly less than all preiovus major wars on the West, and while still very high on the Iraq side, lower than previous wars.

[17:32]  Cindy Ecksol: well, that definitely contradicts your earlier comments which imply that war is about acquisition of resources. here you're saying that "success" in war is about how many casualties there are.

[17:33]  Barbie Starr is Offline

[17:33]  Cindy Ecksol: I'd argue that the US has the smartest weapons in iraq and the lowest casualties, but that the insurgents are winning (will eventually prevail in) the conflict.

[17:33]  You: Another significant argument refelcts the horizontal processes and networking

[17:33]  Sonja Strom: like in Viet Nam

[17:34]  matrix05 Infinity is Offline

[17:34]  You: The military is based on a vey hierarchical structure - that's the basis of it as an institution

[17:34]  Andromeda Mesmer: Well, the war isn't over in Iraq -- and the civilian Iraqi deaths from all causes, including dirty water now, etc. are estimated to be as high as 1.2 million -- and 4 million refugees -- about 1 million of them inside the country.

[17:34]  Cindy Ecksol: sure, viet nam is a perfect example from 30 years ago, and I'd argue that little has changed since if current conflicts are considered

[17:34]  matrix05 Infinity is Online

[17:35]  You: Yesm Sonja . . . When soldiers int eh field, due to smart technologies, can have real time access to communication, the rewriting of chains of commnad is signficant

[17:36]  You: these changes in mortality since all major previous wars in teh past say 150 years, may be due directly to Information TEchnology

[17:36]  Veeyawn Spoonhammer is Online

[17:36]  Boston Hutchinson: I think that the willingness to inflict casualties has diminished considerably.

[17:37]  You: But predicting the future of war fare is like saying teh earth will stop rotating around the sun, or women will stop having babies, - its very difficult

[17:37]  Froukje Hoorenbeek is Offline

[17:37]  Andromeda Mesmer: And partly the US decrease in mortality is due to saving soldiers who would have died in Vietnam -- I guess faster communications, more efficient medical evaculation system, some IT.

[17:37]  You: Yes, Boston - and that's largely due to public opinion, especially due to the Viet Nam war -

[17:38]  You: and particularly due to media- anotehr form of information techology

[17:38]  Cindy Ecksol: wow, that's an interesting point, boston -- kind of implies that war is getting MORE moral, not less.

[17:38]  Sonja Strom: Boston is exactly right!

[17:38]  Boston Hutchinson: World War II was won by devastating and demoralizing the civilian populations.

[17:38]  You: people in the US don't like to see body bags

[17:38]  You: And the pentago has registered this.

[17:38]  Boston Hutchinson: We don't like to see them on either side, actually

[17:39]  Froukje Hoorenbeek is Online

[17:39]  You: And much of this was due to TV coverage in during the Viet Nam war.

[17:39]  Andromeda Mesmer: So it is just a question of successfully marketing and presenting this war to the US public, and punishing anybody who tries to present different aspects of it.

[17:40]  You: But, Boston, particularly on this side -

[17:40]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm not so sure that our opponents are as unscrupulous as we think they are either., though their analysis of the casualties is different from ours.

[17:40]  You: But public opinion is newly significant, A

[17:40]  You: Yes, Boston

[17:40]  You decline virtual reality room from A group member named Lorelei Junot.

[17:41]  Barbie Starr is Online

[17:41]  Cindy Ecksol: I'd say that most of the leaders of the "third world" societies that we see involved in conflicts today are not interested in casualties at all -- they're interested in power because power=money

[17:41]  Boston Hutchinson: By current standards, not only the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but even the fire bombing of Dresden would be called genocide.

[17:42]  You: (I'm looking back to respond to some of your previous quesitons)

[17:42]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, Cindy. that seems to be the bottom line for most of the "players"

[17:42]  You: Yes, Boston

[17:42]  You: Yes

[17:43]  Rain Ninetails: (please excuse Sonja, she had to go)

[17:43]  Boston Hutchinson: Bye Sonja!

[17:43]  You: Bye Sonja! So war is changing significantly and

[17:43]  Cindy Ecksol: Boston, your comment points back to comments a few moments ago about the morality of war. Aphilo asserted it was diminishing, but I think your comments and mine would support the idea that it's actually increasing.

[17:43]  Boston Hutchinson: Isn't it true that networking (media in all forms) has played a key role in reducing the tolerance of war's carnage?

[17:44]  You: the analysis of why and how is very complext . . . but information technology plays a key role in a number of these processes.

[17:44]  Cindy Ecksol: more concern for casualties, and smart bomb technology has allowed us to play war with fewer casualties.

[17:44]  You: I may have mistyped, but mortality has decreased significantly

[17:44]  Joe Petrel is Online

[17:45]  You: Yes, Boston, but particularly media coverage.

[17:45]  Boston Hutchinson: And I think that supports your point, Aphilo, that war is being fought with information.

[17:45]  Cindy Ecksol: ah, "mortality" not morality....makes more sense...

[17:46]  You: and shapingvery new circumstances, that bring down mortality - but IT is so new, and war so old.

[17:46]  Boston Hutchinson: But persuation seems to be more important that using information to control the bombs, though that is also a factor in reducing casualties.

[17:47]  You: Infomraiton Technology in the form of smart weapons - establish immediate superiority with devastating consequences, and then informaiton campaigns persuade, with varying results - is the argument

[17:48]  You: I do have a number of more things to examine vis-a-vis how buseinsess functionnewly to to knowledge genrationa dn the Inormation Technology revolution

[17:49]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm skeptical about the power of smart weapons--you can't defeat a civilian population if you can't attack them. In WW II, we attacked and demoralized the civilians. We can't win without persuading the civilians (and enough of the combatants) to see it our way.

[17:49]  You: But for teh last 10 minutes or so, let's both chat, as well as let me review some of the main arguments for this course, as I think that will help put in perspective

[17:49]  You: what I've said this evening.

[17:50]  You: The idea, Boston, is that smart weapons can be used against command and control cetners, and ther were in both the Persian Gulf War, and in the Iraq war.

[17:50]  Joe Petrel is Offline

[17:50]  Boston Hutchinson: but the command and control is decentralized now, exactly your point!

[17:50]  You: But I share your scepticism, with respect to on the ground war-fare - guerilla war fare - where smart

[17:51]  Robyn Proto is Offline

[17:51]  You: weapons are ineffectual

[17:51]  Boston Hutchinson: The insurgents don't need command and control centers

[17:51]  You: But in bot the Gulf and the Iraq War,

[17:51]  You: major centters of information were attacked from teh beginnings.

[17:51]  Andromeda Mesmer: The Iraqi guerillas are decentralized, and some groups of them, that speak in public, say that is a deliberate policy, but will be coming to an end soon.

[17:52]  You: In the Persian Gulf War,guierilla warfare was insignificant

[17:52]  Cindy Ecksol: major centers were attacked, but it's pretty clear that those attacks (successful though they were in traditional terms) have not resulted in anyting that looks like "victory"

[17:52]  You: In Iraq, various ethnic rivalries, and georgraphy have been much more significant

[17:53]  You: agreeed Cindy

[17:53]  Andromeda Mesmer: The US military spokesmen have on occasion talked about what an adaptable enemy they face, and how new successful methods spread very fast among the guerilla groups.

[17:53]  You: but there is an ongoing attempt to establish a new kind of government, however ineffectually.

[17:53]  Cindy Ecksol: so.....the same "information technologies" and smart weapons that were used in Kuwait are being used in Iraq, but with different results. To what would you attribute that, Aphilo?

[17:53]  You: Yes, A

[17:53]  Boston Hutchinson: You can't control a neighborhood without the cooperation of the neighbors.

[17:54]  You: I just mentioend that above, C

[17:54]  You: So let me recap here from teh beginning

[17:55]  Boston Hutchinson: Easy to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and almost as easy to kick USA out of Iraq.

[17:55]  Cindy Ecksol: ok, I'm just not sure I caught the answer to that last. are you saying that there are more ethnic rivalries in iraq and so the technology applied there did not work as well as it did in kuwait?

[17:56]  You: Yes, command and contrl cetners and various geographcially spread groups in Ira, have made the situation ineffectual for smart weapons.

[17:57]  Boston Hutchinson: Sneakernet is alive and well....

[17:57]  You: So this technological paradigm which is informing the IT revolution is

[17:57]  You: (Yes, Boston)

[17:57]  You: 1) about Information processing and generation

[17:57]  Cindy Ecksol: I guess I'd say that since the new definition of "war" is closer to what we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam than to WWII, your argument about information technology-facilitated networks being the determining factor in modern success looks pretty weak...

[17:57]  You: 2) it pervades and affects every aspect of socioeconomic life

[17:58]  You: 3) it's based on networking - of people, of companies, or technologies

[17:58]  You: - and this is brand new relative to the previous industrial revoltuions

[17:58]  You: 4) operates on the priniciple of flexibility

[17:58]  You: The system is such that it reorganizes and reprograms itself without disintegration

[17:58]  jeanrem Beebe is Online

[17:58]  Boston Hutchinson: But maybe our IT developments are based on the older cultural, interpersonal networks and innovations that start first in culture. --Techology follows culture, rather than culture following technology.

[17:58]  You: and 5) it's based on a technological convergence

[17:58]  Diego Ibanez is Offline

[17:59]  You: in an integrating system

[17:59]  You: so that a) it's an open, not a closing system

[17:59]  You: and b) it's only bound by technological development

[17:59]  Andromeda Mesmer: One thing that is REALLY different in this Iraq war, vs the Vietnam war, is that various people on both sides are able to get their story and pictures out -- for example the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib got out the story of what they were doing via lots of pictures, and various bloggers like Riverbend were able to get their story out, about what was happening to their family and neighbourhood. Even gays like Salam Pax got their stories out.

[17:59]  You: These 5 characteristics are very new, and specific to this information technology revolution

[17:59]  You: and they emerge out of a very unique and specific history

[17:59]  Cindy Ecksol: so according to your #4, the insurgents in all of these conflicts are the "successful" ones -- they have these networks and systems in place that reorganize and reprogram without disintegrating. But of course they also aren't the ones with the technology....

[18:00]  You: So these 5 aspects are what are unique about this informaiton technology revolution.

[18:00]  You: and inform many of the processes that we've examined in the previous classes

[18:01]  You: Perhaps, Bosotn, but I make the case that they go hand in hand

[18:01]  Boston Hutchinson: Perhaps we should substitute "systems" for "technology"

[18:02]  You: And that one signfiicant tension that is new in the Newtokr Society, which we haven't examined in much detail is that between the Network Society and Identity

[18:02]  Boston Hutchinson: From a systems perspective, it doesnt matter whether it's high tech or low tech.

[18:02]  Cindy Ecksol: right on!!!

[18:02]  You: And thus far, we've looked at the Network Society.

[18:02]  Sean18 McCarey is Offline

[18:03]  You: So, we'll meet next week . . . here . . . in cyberspace

[18:04]  You: I encourage you to re-visit somewhat closely the transcripts from the course

[18:04]  You: http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

[18:04]  Cindy Ecksol: I would argue that the really important aspect of information technology vis a vis the "systems" competing in the Iraqui conflict is internet access, not smart weapons. terrorist groups can now manage widely-separated individuals as a single cell whereas in the past cells were geographically limited.

[18:04]  You: I think they'll put in context what we've talked about

[18:04]  You: Yes, blogs play a role

[18:04]  Boston Hutchinson: I think, Aphilo, you're suggesting that low-tech innovation is inspired by high-tech innovation also.

[18:05]  You: The Internet does shape a whole variety of innovations.

[18:05]  Cindy Ecksol: smart weapons become pretty darn irrelevant from that perspective, just as Ford and GM mistook the appearance of factory automation in the Japanese auto companies as the key success factor when it was really just a technology developed to facilitate an already existing process.

[18:05]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, Cindy, so the insurgents have more than just sneakernet.

[18:05]  You: and the low tech innovations you mention, may be identiity related.

[18:06]  Cindy Ecksol: yes, and the Japanese manufacturers too -- computers helped make their new systems more efficient

[18:06]  You: See the transcript on the zapatistas, Cindy, where they successfully used th eInternet, just when it was becoming popular

[18:06]  Cindy Ecksol: but technology didn't invent the system -- it was the other way around. that's what the US manufacturers were missing when they first tried their hand at automation.

[18:07]  Cindy Ecksol: yes, I've read that transcript....

[18:07]  Cindy Ecksol: but I'd still argue that they had their "system" first -- the technology just facilitated something they were already doing.

[18:07]  You: In this course I'm not making a case for technological determinism, but that developments go hand inhand.

[18:08]  Boston Hutchinson: I wonder if we could imagine the Arpanet evolving in a totally different way, with a top-down structure inspired by 19th century business models?

[18:08]  You: I have to leave the location that I am in now.

[18:08]  Boston Hutchinson: What would that look like?

[18:09]  Cindy Ecksol: like an IBM 370 running MVS *lol*

[18:09]  Boston Hutchinson: Sorry Aphilo. This has been very interesting!

[18:09]  You: It came from both the top and the bottom ... in a fascinating way ... and its the serendipity that is so interesting. The internet was to a large degree an accident.

[18:09]  Cindy Ecksol: yes, definitely....

[18:09]  You: I agree . . . and encourage you to continue your conversation...

[18:09]  Cindy Ecksol: that "definitely" was both for Boston and Aphilo...:-)

[18:09]  Sysku Mayo is Online

[18:09]  You: See you next week!

[18:10]  Boston Hutchinson: But the academics already had a non-hierarchical network...

[18:10]  Ralph Radius: Nite Aphilo