Science Fiction

Couple of weeks ago we had two interesting lectures by Michael Godhe about Science Fiction. If I remember correctly first thing he asked us was define concept “Science fiction” and some classmates came up with really good definitions, for example, science fiction is scientific inventions which can be achieved by humans in real, tomorrows’ solutions of present problems, intersection set of collection of scientific/ technological inventions in the past, the present and future. These are just few definitions if you are interested in finding more I would advice to check out this site. BUT if that don’ t satisfy you then maybe this theoretical model could serve as beginning for developing your own definition and if you come up with good solution, please feel free to comment.

I am not big fan of science fiction, but I start realize the exciting part of it. And I believe that it is important to understand that science fiction is not the same as fantasy. Science fiction has context, but imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature. However I must admit that often scientific fiction don’t explain phenomena, they just accept is as it is, like time traveling. During class very often as example of science fiction served “peace of art” called STAR TREK. I haven’t seen or read it myself, but I do agree that in 1960´s when first animated movie was launched it was achievement and nowadays we can talk about it as important historical fact in area of science fiction. Nowadays there is also many science fiction motion movies, but my truly belief is that it is more about entertainment and money than about science, technology and inventions.


If you are interested in Science fiction in different countries then visit following addresses:
Science Fiction Writers of America
Canadian Science Fiction
Australian Science Fiction Foundation
European Science Fiction
Russian Science Fiction

Globe is community

When i was googleing word "community" first source was wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is not academic source and is not reliable, however I would like to quote the explanation of community:

“In biological terms, a community is a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment. The word community is derived from the Latin communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means "common, public, shared by all or many". Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix com- (which means "together") and the word munis (which has to do with performing services).”

So if we accept this definition then we can say that all people belong to one big community, because they all sharing environment – planet Earth (see drawing below). During our lecture in Norköping interesting question arise. If we all belong to one big community then what is all small groups and what is the difference among many groups. At this point I would like to reffer to Wikipedia again:
“In human

communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. Traditionally in socology, a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. However, the definition of the word "community" has evolved to mean individuals who share characteristics, regardless of their location or degree of interaction.”

So after this explanation we can draw a theoretical model of community:

However I would like to present also Mark Comerford model:

If I would like to define the concept of community now… I would say that the most important factor is passion and interests. It is hard to be a member of community which is not interesting for you. Place and environment is not that big problem nowadays, however you need at least few other persons to start build up a community.
We were supposed to discuss what type of community is more qualitative – open vs. gated, free vs. paid, qualitative vs. quantitative etc. Honestly I don’t know what is better. I think that all depends on reason behind, the motivation, the idea of community. And I think that one type doesn’t exclude other and form of community can change by time. For example in the beginning it is opened for everyone, but later when certain amount of people is reached just invited persons are accepted. Or some parts, services of community is free, but some are paid. I really don’t know answer but I believe that most communities have many layers and members of community as well as creators are the ones who decide the mode of community.

Who is a winner first mover or later entrant?

When I am thinking about my previous experience in field of communities (and now I am talking about virtual communities) the only thing which comes in mind is quick check of some sites I belong to but not being very active, for example, Latvian social network for friends – www.draugiem.lv or since august 2007 www.facebook.com. Basically I can say that I have been passive member of certain communities. And I think that there are at least few reasons why:

1) Active membership in any community involves regularity and time and there I am talking about at least few hours in day.
2) Participation in communities requires certain knowledge and interest.
3) New technologies and new applications develop so fast that if you fall out of information cycle, then it is quite hard to catch up with. And for me catching up associate with frustration.
4) Finally, and probably most important - psychologically virtual communities for me is unreal and involvement in them steel time I can spend in real communities, with friends, family, colleagues etc.

Last semester I took course Product development and Innovation management. In this course we discussed concept of first mover and late entrant advantages as well as concept - cyberphobia and ability to adopt new technologies and innovations. Let be bring in small example:
Cyberphobia is phenomenon that in my opinion is also dealing with so called “innovation adaption”. According to Moore*** there are several types of people who accept new technologies in different stages.
Early Market. These are innovators who are always ready to try new technologies.
Early addapters. The technology is caught betwixt and between. There are people using new technology, but it is not widespread yet.
Early Majority. The technology is gaining acceptance among pragmatists in one or more niche markets.
Late majority. The technology has passed the test of usefulness and is now perceived as necessary and standard for many applications. People start to use it to be into area.
Laggards. The late and passive user, who don’t appreciate the importance of technologies. This group is in the risk zone of cyberphobia.

If we look at society from this perspective then it would be possible to divide those who have no problems with accepting new technologies and have no threats from cyberspace and those who can barely accept innovations.
Day by day new media expand and people, including me, learn how to use it in their interests. Because of new social order and fact that technologies take central role in society new phenomena emerge every day. So from this perspective i would say that for early adopters or first movers it is huge advantage. However, i think that late enter don’t miss that much because social networks are changeing so quickly and it is easy to cach up in terms of information, however someone can feel that he/she is falling back.


*** Moore, G. A. (2004): Darwin and the Demon: Innovating Within Established Enterprises, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.86-92.

Contracts: Real versus virtual!

I must be honest…I never read terms of use and I haven’t read Facebook regulations as well and I had no idea what I signed for until I checked out it for my course New media.
There have been quite many discussions about Facebook terms of use which are quite scary if you read them. For me most shocking is the fact that all contents on the site is property of the Company and even after quiting the site they are legal to use data you have provided, for example, your contact information, picture etc. Interesting that actually user of Facebook has no choice what so ever, since the moment he/she join the network. Of course there is always choice to put or not put tick in the box and say „ I agree”. BUT if everyone would become so terrifaid by signing up to different communities and social networks, then new forms of communication, which have become huge industry, would not have future. But that is quite much against the priciples of internet and interactive media.

All this made me think about virtual and real agreements person is signing. Legaly there is no difference, the same terms are used, the same construction, the same obligations and responsibilities. So why do people used to read contracts put on paper and don’t read the ones on screen? Can we say that it is hidden effect of virtuality, that even the name virtual create the fealing that its not for real and we don’ t have any responsibility to take after?


If you would like to reada bit more about absurd stuff in Facebook terms of use i would suggest to check out reviews of my classmates Andras and Per as well as Ralphy's Corner.

WHAT IS NEW MEDIA?

Lately I have been working on improvements of my first blog. I have been adding different applications and features, videos and link lists etc. All that you can find on left side of blog. But then i realized that its all is mostly about view, design of blog and just a little bit about content. Can we say that nowadays design becomes more important than content. If the answer is "yes" - I am quite disappointed in concept of NEW MEDIA.

Specialists Maria Carpenter and Julie Jersyk in my opinion have explained the concept NEW MEDIA in clear way in their presentation: Key concepts in New Media.




“Information and communication technology shapes our perceptions, distributes our pictures of the world to one another, and constructs different forms of control over the cultural stories that shape our sense of who we are and our world. The instant we develop a new technology of communication – talking drums, papyrus scrolls, books, telegraph, radios, televisions, computers, mobile phones – we at least partially reconstruct the self and its world, creating new opportunities for reflection, perception, and social experience...”
--Burnett, Robert and Marshall, David P., Web Theory


So, what is new media for me? As more I think as more I am concern that it is not just design and new tool, but also content is important. However I must admit that interactive platform and nature of internet have changed the form of communication and I will try to explore it in my next post.