The World is Flat....

I’m not sure what to think of Friedman’s metaphorical usage of breaking down the wall. It seems pretty obvious to me that by breaking down barriers, in this case of open source information, we relinquish power to express ideas freely, communicate more fluidly, and innovate for the future. Unless we’re talking about the implications on social sciences, then all I can say to Friedman is “duh!”
Before anyone thinks I’m totally out of tune and not looking at the big picture let me just add that I see what he means when he tells me that the world is flatter as the world becomes more connected to each other. I’ve heard this analogy before in conversation with friends, but using different terminology. Have you ever heard anyone say the world is smaller or it’s not at big as you thought? Of course you have, and Friedman uses his own prose to systematically map out the evolution of the latter part of the information age using political metaphor and economic evidence to make his point.
However, from a historical point of view the events that transpired that brought about Windows 3.0 or even Windows 95, Netscape, fiber optic wiring, and so forth have huge implications at the speed by which these entities contributed to “flattening” the world. For example, Friedman quotes John Doerr of Netscape, “The Netscape IPO was a clarion call to the world to wake up the Internet." Until then, it had been the province of the early adopters and geeks (Friedman, 61). I can’t imagine many people would argue that the outsourcing of the Internet to the public via Netscape was the most evocative affair of our time. Everyone and I mean everyone was able to access the Internet at their leisure. Many thought that it would take some time for people to embrace the Internet, but that wasn’t the case. If people find a significant enough need for something they won’t mind the learning curve to incorporate it into their own cultural sphere.
So here we are in the now. We have free exercise of Internet uploading and downloading, e-commerce, e-mail, webcams, e-learning, and others so that we are pressing forward to either our demise or our eventual dominance in a Utopian world. Time will tell!

Blast from the Past!

It's irrevocablely true that to forecast the future to an exact degree is whole heartedly too difficult to do. Speculation; however, on the possibilities of an upcoming future from an ever changing present remain to be conditioned on solid facts. Solid facts are all we have to go on. Speculation is premissable, but better determined with what we already have. Bush's stimulating look into the future, which is our present, sets a good tone on permissable speculation into an unforseeable future. Bush states in his hypothesis that "The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it." Something has...a technological explosition of complex devices made for multipurposes still yet to be determined. Why is this so important to us? Why do read Bush's hypothesis and be amazed at his conceptual framework of how the world would be?
From speculation to understanding how things came to be is also very important in developing new ideas emulating early innovator's creativity for progression and supervening necessity. I think understanding our past helps establish our future. In the information age, why wouldn't this be true?

Predicting the market evolution of computers: was the revolution really unforeseen.

There is a lot of speculation as to how and why computers came to be in today's world. Winston suggests that the diffusion of computers may have been delayed for reasons he includes as complex computer language guarded by computer programmers who may have wanted to monopolize the information, the incunabula era had a massive expensive computers that lead away potential buyers, and even going away from smaller functional computers that may have been more affordable. The Baby Mark I was a smaller computer that never got much attention for reasons that are still speculated.
I would have to agree with Schnaars & Carvalho that the driving force of the evolution of computers was founded in the market. I do admit that Winston made a good point in the beginning that the diffusion of the computer was kept alive by the inclustion of warfare. Schnaars & Carvalho agrue that the computer began to be talked up to much that a 'keep up with the Jones' mentality began to shape the industry. Companies would purchase computers so not to be beat out by their competition. Market competition sparked innovation and the industry of computers skyrocketed. I would agrue myself that the 'keep up with the Jones' mentality still pushes the computer market forward as new technological innovations enter the market place.

Source

Title

Predicting the market evolution of computers: was the revolution really unforeseen
Schnaars, S. P.; Carvalho, S.
Technology in Society, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1-16, Jan. 2004

What do we need versus what do we know?

It is not farfetched to say that people are easily awed by innovation, specifically technological ones. How many of you have been hooked by the functionality of a new cell phone or the high definition of a television set? Did you ever think to yourself "I wish I had that or I'm going to buy that?"
The text book incorporates the notion of "supervening necessity." As did better business practices lean on the need of the telephone so does our need to have cell phones to stay in contact with family and friends, share pictures, text messages, listen to music, record video, record voice, keep an agenda, etc. To see what I'm getting at? It seems to me that the "supervening necessities" that arise are giving way for technologica convergence. In a society where we consume so much, whether it be information to the newest business comodity, we are contanstly looking for something. What is that something? That's interesting because I could not pin point one thing. Your reasons may differ from another depending on your need, personality, or likes and dislikes. Maybe it's a status thing. Is it for functionality? I don't know; however, "supervening necessity" is the driving force of an utopian society or dystopian society, depending how you look at it. I'm more on the side of utopian personally, but we'll save this discussion for another day.
This is perfect headway into the unintended consequences we face on new technology. Postman made an interesting point that no one new innovation is one sided in consequences. All have good and bad consequences. It now becomes a matter of weighing the consequences whether we participate or not, and if we do participate, what are the good and the bad consequences of that. For example, should I get a cell phone? Yes, I think I will get a cell phone? People can now reach me at anytime. Is this good or bad? Will I become dependent on this phone? What kind of phone do I need? Will this phone do everything I want it to do? Note, I'm already supposing that the phone will need to do more than just call someone. Do you see my point?
From a researching point of view the U&G of a device can, as the article stated, identify and measure the practicality of the devise in the market place and in society. This method of identifying and measuring will help me identify how to give a better analysis of the uses and needs of digital asset management in the financial industry, which is the topic of my research paper this quarter. It will identify how well this method of technical business practice will be incorporated in the corporate world. Then again going along with Postman again, maybe all that needs to be done is tell people it will work and it will. Because as Postman states "in a world without spiritual or intellectual order, nothing is unbelievable; nothing is predictable, and therefore, nothing comes as a particular surprise." (itallics used for sarcasm)

Times are changing!

Indulge me for a second and look with me at the way new technologies introduce themselves. I must admit this may come to some of you as little on the dystopian side of things, but I honestly don't intend it that way. But back to my point...doesn't it seem with every new innovation of technology a bigger and better one will soon follow? I know, I'm so profound. Trust me that I have a much more gross perspective than you might think than one of soley stating the obvious. Imagine with me. Have you ever seen those little annimations with a little fish swimming along who is followed by a hungry bigger fish who is being followed by an even hungrier bigger fish? Sure you have, and it can appear to some as a very pessamistic outlook, but really, it's just a fact of life. The article How the Internet killed the phone business used the term "distruptive technology." How true that is sometimes. I would agree in the contexts of the article that VOIPs are a disturbance and an annoyance to the traditional phone company. I believe that VOIPs will be the big fish that eats the phone company unless it can roll with the punches and embrace it. Do you think that's a possibility?
Along that same idea of rolling with the punches I think it's safe to conclude that one idea spawns another. Edward Davy understood this concept as the railroad company took flight. The advent of the railroad created the need for greater communication among railroad engineers for railroad safety. Davy's foresight introduced the operation of the telegraph.

The history of telegraph offers a clear example of how one technology, in this case the railways, creates a supervening necessity for another, the telegraph. (Winston 1998: 23)

How many times have we seen something like this occur? Clearly demand is the major factor in all this. I'll be so bold to say that we want the bigger fish to eat the smaller one. Why? That's a question I'm interested in knowing myself.