Mike J--
Notice that in projecting the convergence of individual oriented consumerism
a la Amazon-Google preference structures and news, the film interjects
Winston Smith as a typical consumer, making a direct connection to the
course I start with 1984. That is certainly one not-entirely-unplausible
future.
mikeC
On Apr 6, 2005 9:30 AM, Michael JOHNSON <johnsonmr1@cardiff.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> if at first... (thanks Bruce - you're one wonderful listadmin!)
>
> >>> Michael JOHNSON 04/04/2005 10:50:36 >>>
> a couple of thoughts then, as you have successfully lifted me above wading
> through post-vacation email...
>
> 'the more things change...' - I felt that the piece over-eggs the
> techno-rhetoric - particularly after attending a seminar by Lucy Suchman
> recently (Recurring Rhetorics of Technological Innovation). 10 years has
> been a magic figure - just near enough to the present, just long enough into
> the future to speak beyond our ability to realistically predict what may or
> may not happen. I was people-watching yesterday morning (lazy Sunday style)
> and noticed a neighbour drive off and return with the huge wad that has
> become our Sunday newspapers. I believe that 'reading the paper' (and all
> that this entails) as a leisure activity will take more than 10 years to
> kill off - that is, until electronic paper replaces newsprint...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> mike
>
> (hope that wasnt too prosaic! at least here's one lurker to the surface
> ;o)
>
> >>> lchcmike@gmail.com 03/04/2005 18:52:24 >>>
> Thanks for posting that media history piece, Linda. I am teaching the
> introduction to Communication this quarter, starting with 1984 and ending
> with ,.,..;. well, 2014 would do as a date. If others are interested, I am
> sure happy to discuss. We have a lot on the table/sreen, but people appear
> distracted by more important, local matters.
>
> Noting a glitch on xmca's way of listing members (the real members are not
> on the members page which is mostly a relic of the past, strewn with dead
> links, while the real membership is visible by cliking on the blinking
> sign
> on button), I was struck by how many people were signed up for xmca from
> whom we never hear. Since the web discussion is available in a
> treadeddiscussion archive and is so convenient that way, I am puzzled why
> people would want to be receiving xmca mail they have no intention of
> responding to mixed in with their daily spam. Maybe xmca is spam
> garnishing?
>
> What do you think, as Eugene was want to say in an earlier life?
> mike
>
> PS-- I hope it was clear that it was Ana who wrote the butterfly poem. I
> may
> have inadvertantly mis-posted. Only the butterfly stragglers inhabit our
> garden today.
>
> On Apr 3, 2005 9:11 AM, Polin, Linda <Linda.Polin@pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a 'paper' worth discussing, or at least viewing:
> >
> > http://oak.psych.gatech.edu/~epic/
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PDT