So Correct me if I am wrong but by the sounds of what Bleecker is saying he's paranoid things will take over the world as we know it. I am convinced the guy was hallucinating while writing this, or possibly is just one of those people that needs to throw his thoughts out whether they make sense or are coherent or not.
So I'm going to step off the reading topic and give this my own take, preferably without the multitude of the word THINGS, because I think it would inevitably want me to claw my eyes out.
So the part I did understand was in regards to social networking, and the idea of it no longer being just a phenomenon on the internet but rather physically being a part of what we know as our internet/life/world. I suppose the constant throwing in the word thing just made it repetitive enough for my brain to shut down and refuse to grasp the idea of much of anything.
This may sound harsh, but it being my last post I think it's only fair I get to criticize this readings author's sanity. I mean honestly, did he write it and not think to read through it and maybe just maybe ask himself if people would understand it as well as he seems to? It's like it never occurred to him that we aren't all rocket scientists?
Definitely the worst of all readings for this class, the other's I enjoyed this one was just not my taste, to much for me to handle and just makes me question some people's sanity.
2 comments:
I do agree that the whole social networking concept for every object on earth was a bit far fetched. Though to be honest, it may not seem as barbaric if the idea is organised a little better. I take it that from the Ericsson "Network Home" ad, the home owner was in a social network with his objects and his objects only. So my guess is that there will be a niche market of social networks rather than having to integrate all our objects onto the most popular ones.
I agree, this reading was incoherent and in some parts simply nonsensical... (Is that a word?)
Anyway, What I gathered from the 'things' and 'Blogjects' argument was that inanimate objects can have a voice in cyberspace, particularly social networks. I thought of this as current trends of brands, shoes, clothes and other inanimate objects having Facebook pages. I realise these objects haven't magically evolved to use computers on their own accord, and that marketers are infact status updating for the objects, but this is the closest I got to understanding Bleeckers 'Blogject' idea in a real life example.
Post a Comment