ResponsesForJan23And25

Write your name in the "Subject" box below. Write your response in the response box. Try to write at least 200 words. When you're done, hit "add comment."

Respond to "Lost and Found" and/or "The Bag." You can respond to either one or to both. Here are two suggestions for response, but you can also choose your own topics to respond to.

Response to "The Bag." Flusser describes the bag as a part of his memory. Of course, there are objects like this for all of us, physical spaces that we use to organize our minds and our selves. His essay concludes: "I always carry the bag with me. We all do this only my bag is more readily available. The question is: can our bags be stolen from us? Or would they always be found again a few blocks away, intact? Put differently; firstly: are we lighter and therefore progress more quickly into the future when our bags are lifted from us? And secondly; are these living or dead weights in our bags?" Flusser is suggesting that memory and all the things it contains is an encumbrance, and that technical supplements to memory let us offload this "weight." He suggests that we would be better off to trust our memories more entirely to such supplements. Do you agree? For example, would it be useful to let computers remember our tasks and take care of our lives? Would this free us up to do other things (as Flusser puts it: "are we lighter and therefore progress more quickly into the future")?

Response to "Lost and Found." "It’s all about words," writes Morville, in describing the architecture of the World Wide Web. What role do words play in the new Web 2.0 of "ambient findability" described in Morville's article? Explain.

comments:

Alison Daly --adaly, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:26:01 -0500 reply
In response to "The Bag" - I'm a little wary of what the author is suggesting here. I don't know how other people think, but I don't really trust computers all that wholeheartedly just yet. Maybe that will change in years to come, but I'm all too accustomed to losing files after files from computer crashes, misplaced backup CDs?, any and all other technical problems that my computer seems to contract like a 4 year old toddler. I think that there are other ways to keep track of our "memories" -- I use sticky notes and make lists. And sure, you can do that on a computer, but there's something I like about acheiving a task and being able to mark it off on my little sticky note! :) I think having robots or computers "take care of our lives" might be time conserving one day, but how much time does it take to glance at a sticky note or think to the back of your mind and go, "Oh yes I have this task to take care of today!"? I don't think it's necessary - at least anytime soon - to have machines running our lives. I take pride in personal achievements, and if I had to leave it up to a computer to remind me of something every hour of the day, I think I'd be much worse off.

Sara Bailey --sbailey, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:11:54 -0500 reply
In response to "Lost and Found."

In Morville's essay "Lost and Found," Morville makes a very interesting comment,"It's all about words." He says that if you were looking for an orange life jacket in an orange sea, you wouldn't be able to find it. His point is this: the World Wide Web is made up of words. Yes, it is also made up of graphics and sounds, but for the most part, it is a sea of words. However, you can find anything on the Web based on a search of a keyword. I had never thought of it like that before until he mentioned it. You don't look for information by what color it is or what sound it makes, but by a word. You look up artcles by searching for a word or combination of words. Without words there will not be "ambient findability." It's all about the words.

... --mwithrow, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:16:55 -0500 reply
The suggestion by Flusser that we might be better off by somehow "unloading" or responsibilities and memories off onto computers, aka "The Bag," is certainly one of complication. On one hand, these machines can be valuable tools to help us organize our often hectic lives. They can provide reminders of tasks to be completed that might otherwise be lost in the chaotic shuffle of the everyday. I personally do use my cell phone, for instance , to make notes to serve as a sort of personal assistant. However, I also often use index cards, which I can place upright on my desk, in plain view so that they simply cannot be ignored. An actual physical thing like that is often harder to ignore and far less likely to be lost to "technical difficulties." Sure, offloading one's brain might relieve worry and free up space for more pleasant things, but it is the worry that we carry around that keeps us motivated to achieve our goals. The use of any electronic device, for me personally, does not clear out mental space anyhow. I might put a reminder on my phone, but I still carry the burden of that impending task in my mind until it is complete. I would venture to guess that a great deal of people do that same. What is in our minds can never be taken away from us, whether we like it or not! (barring a terrible physical ailment of course.) I think it is important for our society to fuse these new found technologies with the traditional, physical elements that have been dependable for so very long. Computers should be used as backup devices to the mind, not as a replacement.

April Marrara --amarrara, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:48:36 -0500 reply
In Lost and Found, Peter Morville focuses on ‘findability,’ particularly a topic’s ability to be located on the Web. Morville says that findability on the Web is too oft considered from the top-down with companies concerning themselves with only the immediate ideas of their own websites rather than how the websites might be found within the larger matrix of the World Wide Web in the first place.

I think the author makes a good point here because research on the Internet can quite be a crapshoot. The findability (as it were) of any given topic is highly dependent on the relative skills of the researcher. Despite the many existing search engines and special interests existing all over the web, there is no central unity by which individuals might more easily find the subjects of their concern. Instead, the Web is flooded with information—a sea of knowledge—and the small rafts upon which we search this vast ocean cannot compare to the breadth of data it carries in every crest and wave.

Morville also seems to say that the Web is future oriented. The very nature of a ‘search’ implies a destination or at least a goal. The author would seem to say that this goal of the Web is ambient findability “where we can find anyone or anything from anytime at anywhere” (6). By this definition, I would have to agree that ambient findability seems to be one of the driving goals of the Web. However, this goal is impeded by the lack of centrality mentioned above. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that such unity could ever be applied to the Web. If this is so, then that would mean ambient findability is an impossible objective, something that though it might always be striven towards, would never quite come within our grasp. This last is the opinion I hold: I do not believe ambient findability is truly possible because the Web is too fluid a body to be restricted by such directed design.

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:30:10 -0500 reply

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:54:15 -0500 reply
In responce to "The Bag".

I believe that Flusser’s notion of a bag is somewhat correct. As time and technology have progressed side by side, humans have relied on technology more and more as a means of remembering. As an example, I would ask someone to think about how many phone numbers they know off the top of their head. Now, I would ask that person to think about the amount of phone numbers they have in their cell phone. The cell phones are a definite example of a device that humans use to “unload” information into. Flusser asks the question of weather we are “lighter” when our bags are lifted from us? The question of weather these devices indeed allow us to “free” up space in our memories for other things would be hard to validate. I might argue that our own minds function in a way to free up memories for us. As time passes, memories become less and less vivid, and we often tend pack incidences that have occurred in our lives in the back arsenal of our minds. These memories, for the most part, were not lost but stored away, because they are not needed on a daily basis. This may free up our brains for the day to day use of our memories.

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:55:43 -0500 reply
In responce to "The Bag".

I believe that Flusser’s notion of a bag is somewhat correct. As time and technology have progressed side by side, humans have relied on technology more and more as a means of remembering. As an example, I would ask someone to think about how many phone numbers they know off the top of their head. Now, I would ask that person to think about the amount of phone numbers they have in their cell phone. The cell phones are a definite example of a device that humans use to “unload” information into. Flusser asks the question of weather we are “lighter” when our bags are lifted from us? The question of weather these devices indeed allow us to “free” up space in our memories for other things would be hard to validate. I might argue that our own minds function in a way to free up memories for us. As time passes, memories become less and less vivid, and we often tend pack incidences that have occurred in our lives in the back arsenal of our minds. These memories, for the most part, were not lost but stored away, because they are not needed on a daily basis. This may free up our brains for the day to day use of our memories.

response to "The "Bag" --eprompovitch, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:32:45 -0500 reply
Flusser is suggesting that the bag in his story “the bag” is in fact his memory. I think he is talking about both his physical memory and his computer’s memory. He describes his bag in a way that makes the reader believe that the contents of the bag are this mans entire identity. Especially in more recent times, it is very possible for a person’s identity to be taken from them via the computer and the internet. When Flusser describes the loss of the bag, he is describing the loss of his identity. The fact that he got the bag back, in tact, doesn’t discourage me from being weary of the information I put about myself on the web. If my purse were to get stolen, I doubt I would get it back in tact. Flusser describes the bags as having different compartments for different folders and being extremely organized. This makes me think of a computers memory with tons of codes and keywords one must know to unlock the information. That is why the thief did not look into his findings because the documents were not of meaning to him. At the end, I think he is asking if we clear our past memories/ judgments is it easier for new ones to form and are our memories more powerful than just a dead past in ones mind.

Erica Reib --ereib, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:50:38 -0500 reply
I think that I both agree and disagree with Flusser. I do agree with the fact that my mind cannot hold and process and remember absolutely everything that I want it to. Therefore I agree with his notion that we need to relieve some of the burden from our brains; we need to put lists and thoughts and random notions down on paper to see both where we have been and where we are going. This is as far as my agreement with him goes, however. Maybe I am just not technologically savvy enough, but when doing these things I do not typically use my computer. I have a planner to remember dates; I have endless post it notes and small pieces of paper floating around bags and books and my desk – all in the effort to try to aid my brain in remembering what exactly it is that was so important that I thought about in class yesterday. Maybe they would actually be more organized on my computer, but I do not always have access to it. I think this may also go back to the last response and the fact that I trust paper and a pen a little more than I trust my computer. And I think I really just enjoy the fact that I can cross things off of my list and see visible progress!

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:05:42 -0500 reply
In response to Flusser and the idea of letting computers store everything for us, I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, I don't trust my computer to think for me. An example of when I disagree with my computer is when I am writing a paper using Word and my computer tries to automatically capitalize a letter or indent a paragraph when I don’t want it to do so. I do however like how sometimes when I am shopping on amazon.com or a similar website, the site suggests other products I might enjoy considering what I am currently browsing or have purchased in the past. The major reason I disagree with letting technology do something for us is the fact that our “bags” can be stolen, and unlike Flusser’s luck, they are not always found intact a block away. For example, last semester I lost my cell phone. My cell phone was my only phone, as I do not have a line in my apartment, and my phone also contained the numbers of my family and friends, favorite restaurants, and classmates that I would contact about assignments. Because I had not taken the time to memorize these things or even write them down on my own, I was completely lost along with my phone. I trusted this so-called “technical supplement” to make my life easier, but in turns out once I lost the supplement there was only more weight added to my life.

Jennifer Habina --jhabina, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:37:23 -0500 reply
Letting computers and technology remember our tasks and keep track of our lives is easier then doing it ourselves. Computers can save A LOT of documents and anything that is inportant to you. All you have to do is click the "save/save as" buttons and you are done. The information will be stored in your computer until you erase it. If you cannot take your computer with you there is the option of saving your infotmation to a disk or a memory card. It is just plain out easier. It is hard to keep hundreds (sometimes less, sometimes more) of documents with you at any given time. Many people might get scared because computers can crash, you can lose your memory card or floppy disk and your information would be gone. But this same thing could happen if you were carrying around your information with you in hard copies. That is what happend in "The Bag." Luckily, his information was found. I think that computers are more reliable because the information is more private. You can protect your computer and your documents. Unlike when you have hard copies you can only rely on yourself to protect everything, you do not have "spyware" or any type of protection. Technology helps us keep track of our lives. Computers are not the only instance where this occurs. Look at a cell phone for example. They can hold hundreds of numbers for you. On the other hand, it would be extremely hard to memorize that many numbers and not forget. It would also be annoying to write out all of those numbers and keep it on paper and then have to look each person up every time you wanted to talk to them. Technology is more effective because it makes our lives simpler. One might argue that we are being torn away from traditional values and spending too much time with technology, but everything is so face paced these days that it is hard to spend/waste time doing things manually when you could do it faster with technology.

Patrick Brooks --pbrooks, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:39:03 -0500 reply
In reference to “The Bag” I certainly agree with Flusser’s claim. It is true that I am a technology geek, but I do not know what I would do without my Cell phone and my Palm Pilot. My cell phone connects to my computer and backup all of my phone numbers and with the help of Microsoft Outlook keeps my contacts up to date. My palm pilot does everything from allow me to write text in Microsoft word to keeping my complex calendar in line. These “bags” are what allow me to function. The amount of information that I carry with me on a daily basis is phenomenal. Consider the JumpDrive? (also called Memory Sticks, Thumb Drives, etc.). Even the smallest memory allotment on these devices allows us to carry hundreds of thousands of pages of text on our key ring. To me this all makes my life simpler. I know that some people are still nervous about advanced technologies like these; however most of the trepidation comes from lack of experience. The fact that I have so much information at hand so easily makes my everyday life easier to manage, and in my opinion, allows me to enjoy my life more. You may have a weekly planner in your book bag as I do. However, if you are anything like me you forget to write in it or you write in it but don’t check it everyday. With features on my Palm and my cell phone I can be reminded minutes, hours, days, or weeks before an event. I know there are people reading this who think that I just like to play with my toys, and to a certain extent that is true. But in the end, I can not imagine my life without my “bag”.

Meghann Wilson --mwilson, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:08:24 -0500 reply
In reference to "The Bag", I somewhat agree with Flusser's claim about storing out memories and tasks in a computer. I know we can all attest to a time when a computer has crashed and work was lost. I couldn't imagine having all my memories, tasks, pictures etc. lost due to storing everything in the computer. It’s like that saying goes "don't store all your eggs in one basket." I hate having to have backups of backups for papers and such. I don’t like not being able to fully rely on my computer. I like being able to write down my tasks and such on note cards. If gives me a sense of accomplishment if I see the task crossed off compared to deleted on the computer. Besides, I already get reminded from parents and friends to get my work done, the last thing I want is my computer telling me what to do when half the time it doesn't do what I want it to do.

Alison Sanfacon --asanfacon, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:34:05 -0500 reply
What Flusser describes in The Bag is probably one of my worst nightmares. I don't know what I would do if I lost everything that I'd been working on. I don't keep my writing in a bag, but my computer is full of it. A computer can just as easily be lost (stolen, deleted, thrown against a wall, etc) as a bag. He asks if it's good to keep these things we consider to be important or if they just hold us back. I don't think that having a bag full of important documents is any worse than having a computer full of files. Either way, you're taking for granted the safety of the information you want to save. To use a cliche, it's putting all your eggs in one basket. You can let computers do all your work for you, as far as filing information, keeping appointments and that sort of thing, and then one day it's gone and you have nothing to fall back on. Then where's your future? You have to restart. Unloading all of this "hardcopy," if you will, into electronic form has its benefits, but like all things there are risks involved. It depends on the person. For me, it's nice to have everything in one place. It travels neatly, stores everything I need, AND plays music and episodes of The Office. Paper can't do that. When Apple comes out with improved paper that has itunes, then I'll rethink things.

Kristen Crestfield --kcrestfield, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:06:05 -0500 reply
This is in response to The Bag. First off I understand where Flusser is coming from becuase we all have something we put our memories into. Its just a way to get organized and to say time. I dont agree with him that we just let others take our bags, though they can be persuaded, by others. The "bag" persay is a thing within ourselfs, that we will not be able to replace even with computers. Computers and technology wont cant and wont replace everyday chores like making breakfeast, or brushing your teeth. Though the bag puts everything in one place, I dont think it can be physically acquired. or replaced. I mean not like a zip drive that you can store everything on, and can refer back to it. They can be replaced, and I think hes implying that someday our "bags" will be replaced. By what they call computers, or zip drives, etc. Our memomries will never go away, we will always have them to live by. Even in the instance of people with conditions. As long as we can hold onto one memory then maybe we could consider letting our bags be replaced the the suppliments he speaks of. Until then all we have are our bags.

Andrea Dispenza --adispenza, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:38:24 -0500 reply
The Bag

It is a very interersting theory that Flusser. Everyone stores information in a chronological order, whether you realize it or not. By storing it in a certain way makes it easier to find, just like what Flusser does with his folders. We can’t trust our “bag” or memories to supplements because what happens if they do get lost or stolen. As humans we use different facts, information, situations and so forth to help us adapt to various situations everyday. They are a part of who we are and without them we would all be a blank slate. It is the memories and events in our lives that shape us as individuals.

With technology today we sometimes think that computers and other devices can do everything for us. Yes computers make life easier but that is another topic: “what have we given up for technology?” Palm pilots and other devices do help many people remember things they have to do, but I look at as a fancy way to make a note or list. Computers can’t do or lives nor should they.

Brittany Swisher --bswisher, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:26:54 -0500 reply
In Response to The Bag

Flusser does a very good job of paralleling the structure and function of the bag with that of the memory. Items are arranged in the mind chronologically and by importance just like in Flusser's bag. It is also true that we tend to put things that are less important to us at the time in a seperate part of our mind, where they are stored but not seen day to day.

I don't think that it would be a good idea to place all of our important memories and thoughts in such a "bag" because it is not as safe as being locked away in our mind. Sure, one day when we are old and losing our memory we may wish that we would have stored a sort of hard copy of some important events that we just can't seem to remember. However, if the memories were stolen from us and we were unable to recover them, it would be as if we had lost part of our lives, our hard work, our world.

Kim Miller --kmiller, Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:36:11 -0500 reply
In response to The Bag:

I think there are both living and dead weights in our bags, but I feel it is necessary that we continue to carry these weights if we want to be sure they remain with us. The living weights we must carry are things that matter to us now, like projects we are currently working on. The dead weights are materials from our past that we may not need anymore, but are still important to us and we don’t want to forget about them.

I do think allowing computers to carry some of our weights, particularly dead ones that we’re not using at the moment could free us up to do other things, but I can’t trust them enough to rely on them for something so important. I can recall at least three times in the past few years that I’ve lost everything on my computer. In these cases, I would have been better off keeping my past work in folders, like Flusser, than counting on a computer to carry it for me. Now I’ve started saving everything on a jump drive which may be more reliable than memory a computer, but is still fairly easy to lose. For now, I think I’ll keep relying on my mind and hard copies of work I’ve done rather than having computers carry all of my weights for me.

Jeff Bowers --jbowers, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:26:35 -0500 reply
I think the idea of the bag can be somewhat compared to the crash of the stock market in the 1930's. If that’s where all you're money was, and then all the sudden it’s gone, what do you have left? Of course, at the same time you have to think that someone couldn't possibly store everything from their life on a computer, even if they tried to. But, say you're walking through the desert and you have a camel, there’s nothing wrong with putting a couple of your bags on his back, because even if he dies, nothing says you cant pick the bags back up and carry them the rest of the way yourself. And as far as the whole idea of, “are we lighter and therefore progress more quickly into the future”, I’m not sure. But I do think it would be easier to travel if you didn’t have to pack a bag every time.

Angela Moscaritolo --eobriant, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:49:51 -0500 reply
I agree with you to some extent about storing information in technology can be helpful, but I don't think that we should put all of our trust into the technology because items such as computers and cell phones can ultimately fail, leaving us with even more on our mind than before.

Erica Reib --jhabina, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0500 reply
I agree with you but in the story of "The Bag", he lost his most inportant documents. He is saying that by using a computer maybe those documents would not get lost. Now think about if one of your post-it notes fell off or you accidently forgot to write something down in your planner. Your computer/other types of technology would be there to help you remember. I am not looking down upon your choices to rely less on technology; however, it does make life simpler and I think that was his main point of the essay.

Erica Reib --jhabina, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:50:47 -0500 reply
I agree with you but in the story of "The Bag", he lost his most inportant documents. He is saying that by using a computer maybe those documents would not get lost. Now think about if one of your post-it notes fell off or you accidently forgot to write something down in your planner. Your computer/other types of technology would be there to help you remember. I am not looking down upon your choices to rely less on technology; however, it does make life simpler and I think that was his main point of the essay.

... --ereib, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:50:57 -0500 reply
I disagree that on the point that unloading my mind does not free up more space in my brain. For me sometimes just being able to write not-so-important-things down so that I can get them out of my head can help me concentrate on other tasks.

Erica Reib --jhabina, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:51:02 -0500 reply
I agree with you but in the story of "The Bag", he lost his most inportant documents. He is saying that by using a computer maybe those documents would not get lost. Now think about if one of your post-it notes fell off or you accidently forgot to write something down in your planner. Your computer/other types of technology would be there to help you remember. I am not looking down upon your choices to rely less on technology; however, it does make life simpler and I think that was his main point of the essay.

Jennifer Habina --mwithrow, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:51:08 -0500 reply
There is basically no arguing with the fact that storing our memories onto computers is easier, but I think the real question is whether or not that is safe, reliable and ultimately beneficial. In general, it is just not a good idea to allow technology to take over our daily tasks entirely. We need to find balance, a sensible means of intergrated our new found technological conveniences with our inherent human capabilities. This way, if the brain fails, the computer can be fallen back upon, and vice versa. So to simply take a piece of information, load it onto a computer and put it out of sight and out of mind is potentially dangerous and certainly lazy. We have to challenge our minds to remember; we have to always be stimulating our brains in such a way that we do not undermind our natural gifts of logic and reason as well as our ability to recall. This can only be beneficial to us in all facets of life.

Patrick Brooks --mwilson, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:52:28 -0500 reply
I disagree with Patricks statement because I do have a planner and I check it everyday. My planner is my life and I don't need a computer reminding me what tasks and meetings I have to get done in that particular day. I find it easier writing something down on paper than trying to type things out in a palm pilot or my cell phone. How much longer does it really take to write something in your palm pilot and then transfer it to your computer and then wait for your computer to upload; a lot of time. I had a palm when I first stared college in 2003 and to this day, I find writing my tasks in a planner faster and more convienent. Whatever means of tracking your life works for you, you are more than likely going to check it more.

response to "The "Bag" --bswisher, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:52:42 -0500 reply
I don't think that he was necessarily asking that we "clear out" our memories for new ones to grow, but to push them to the back of our filing system to where they are safe but stored away. I think that yes, you can get your identity stolen on the web, but it is less likely that you would get your memories (ie: vacation pictures, journals, love emails) stolen from your computer- these are more valuable in the end than your credit card numbers.

Alison Daly --pbrooks, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:04 -0500 reply
Ali, though I agree with you that there is a sense of pride in personal achievements, can you not receive that same sense by marking it off a “To Do” list on a personal organizer. Isn’t it completing the task that gives you a sense of pride and not the act of throwing away a piece of paper? In addition, sticky notes are great to remind you of one or two small things, but what if you are extremely busy? If I used sticky notes instead of a digital list I would always have at least two dozen notes stuck around my desk. In my opinion sticky notes always seem to make me over anxious about what I have to do. A dozen sticky notes stuck to the edge of my computer monitor are overwhelming. You are right in that it is not always necessary to “have machines running our lives”, but what is the harm in letting them make it much simpler.

Brittany Swisher --ereib, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:24 -0500 reply
I like the point that you make about his bag being very much like a memory, organized in chronological order and in order of inportance, with things being put on the back burner when they are not so important. I think this is something that the brain can achieve that a computer cannot. A computer does not prioritize, so it may not be able to have the same effectiveness in its organization unless it is tediously organized by the user.

Erica Reib --cmalcomb, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:30 -0500 reply
Yes it is handy to have things written down in a planner or on sticky notes because it is tangible information and not just digital stuff. However, I think it is just as easy to loose a planner as it would be to loose digital information. Personally, I start planners and then never check them. I think it is just as convenient to have a PDA or a cell phone that can beep at you to remind you when you have something planned or when something is due.

Angela Moscaritolo --jhabina, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:33 -0500 reply
It is true that computers and cell phones can fail. But it is also true that you yourself can fail by losing your own documents. Nothing is gauranteed but if you have a computer you can atleast have backup. For example, you can get a floppy disk and save all of your information or a memory card. If you are only trusting yourself you could easily misplace things. Using a technology makes things simpler and there is backup for which you can easily find your information if your computer crashes.

Alison Sanfacon --jbowers, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:39 -0500 reply
I agree that losing all my work because a computer crashed would make for a bad day. But what would make it easier to deal with is making copies of the documents. and that doenst even mean backing them up on another computer. nothing says that you cant keep paper copies of everything. you could still enjoy all the advantages of having your documents stored on a computer and still be able to keep stacks of paper somewhere just in case. its like watching the office, you dont just save them to your computer and throw away the dvd.

Angela Moscaritolo --eprompovitch, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:55:32 -0500 reply
I agree with the fact that man's dependency on devices for memory has increased a lot over the past 50 years. I think our society has become too dependent on electronic devices for day-to-day life. The mind does "free up" its own space just through time, but is there a way to physically achieve this? I dont think it is as easy to jsut clean out our memory as we would a computers memory. Just becasue these memories we have are stored away in our subconcious, are we lighter or still carrying them with us? i think our memory and the human body is so powerful that we dont need to "unload" to feel lighter, our bodies can handle the weight.

Patrick Brooks --eobriant, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:55:55 -0500 reply
I agree that it is difficult to imagine our lives with our "bags", but I think we need to be careful about how much information we trust these "bags" with because technology can fail us at any time. Also, with too much technology to store different items, I would probably forget where I put different things. I would have to write myself notes about where I stored my notes.

Jennifer Habina --amoscaritolo, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:11 -0500 reply
I agree with Jennifer's point that computers and technical devices that serve as memory aid's make life easier. I do believe that computers can be very unreliable, however. For example, if someone does not back up their documents, and the computer crashes, all their documents will be gone. I experienced this last year when my laptop crashed. I did not expect for this to happen, and lost all of my documents and pictures that were stored on the computer. I now know that the lifespan of a laptop is not very long, so I do not rely on my computer as the only means of storing all of my important documents. I do believe that computers can be a very important recource and make life easier, but I think that it is necessary that people back up their work with either hard copies or on cd's or some other method of saving the information just incase the computer crashes.

Jeff Bowers --kcrestfield, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:14 -0500 reply
I dont think I fully agree with you. I dont know if you can compare the bag to the crash of the stock market. This is because the crash of the stock market took time to rebuild. If you have all the money you had on you in a bag and it got stolen you can still cancel your cards, and your going to get money again somehow. It doesnt matter either way how you get it. When it comes to the computer and how it can't possibly store everything, yes it cant store memories, or emotions. Though a computer can provoke emotions and memories, and has the ability to store everything else.

Jeff Bowers --bswisher, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:26 -0500 reply
If you lost all your money in the stock market crash- you would still have your memories! I'm not really sure where you are going with the camel thing, maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough to get it. It would be easier to travel through life without all your luggage with you at all times, it may be best to keep your important meetings and deadlines stored in your black berry so that when your mind fails you you can just look at the date and see what you have planned.

Angela Moscaritolo --amarrara, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:49 -0500 reply
I think that you have a good point about technology aiding memory. However, technology also revolutionizes the very nature of memory as well. Consider this, before the advent of writing, human history was kept via oral traditions. It is from such traditions that documents like the Hebrew Bible were eventually derived and made more permanent. While we would consider human memory to be much more flawed than the more stagnant nature of ink, we are also only using our own culture context of memory to define this consideration. We depend on our technology to help us remember, but if we did not have this technology, would we have no memory? Or would our memories only be vague ideas, blurred by time? I don’t think so. If we had no computers, no videocameras—no writing—we would take better care of the memories in our own minds because we wouldn’t have the reassurance of technology to turn fall back on.

Alison Daly --kmiller, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:57:05 -0500 reply
I agree with your statement of not wholeheartedly trusting computers. I've lost too many documents, projects and pictures that I had saved on computers to fully trust them to save such important things for me. I also find it satisfying to make lists of things I need to do and cross them off once they're finished. It wouldn't feel nearly as rewarding to just have the task removed from a calendar on your computer as it is to cross it off yourself once you're done.

Alison Daly --mwilson, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:58:19 -0500 reply
I agree with your statement. I do not want a computer reminding me what needs to be done for the day. Everyone has their own way of reminding themselves that work needs to get done, but the last thing I want is a machine reminding me I have an exam the next day and that I need to study.

Meghann Wilson --adaly, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:58:27 -0500 reply
I like the last thing you said where computers shouldn't tell you what to do when they never do what we want them to do. I think computers are so unreliable most times, that if they had to take care of my day for me, something would go seriously wrong because it didn't do the right thing. Why have a machine do something for you when all it takes is five seconds to remember what you had to do in the first place?

Jennifer Habina --adispenza, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:58:39 -0500 reply
Yes computers can save a lot of information and we do forget things so they are helpful. I understand why you think computers can be more private because we have passwords and numerous folders where we store information. But if you look at as the bag as your memory, thoughts, and ideas, then I don't think the computer is very safe. What's stored in your brain only you know and understand. It is your choice if you want to share information. You choose who you tell and what you tell. Even though we have spyware and all these great technologies to keep people out it still is not the same as being stored in your brain. For example, we all get hundreds of "junk emails" and we all have "profiles" out there on the internet that connect us. Yes its your choice to put what you want on the web, but people take it without permission. If only you have it, then only you can phsycially hand it to someone or verbally inform them.

Kim Miller --cmalcomb, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:09 -0500 reply
I am also a person that likes to keep hard copies of things that are imortant to me. However, finding these things at a later date can prove as somewhat of a challenge. This is because I keep so much stuff that it is piled in boxes and crates in my house back home and my apartment here, so I'm not sure I'd know where to look to find some things. I find it much easier to store old documents on my computer. I have lost some things by doing this, but it was mostly stuff I probably wouldn't have looked at again. However, I find it more convenient, so I guess I still trust computers to store my information

Jeff Bowers --mwithrow, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:13 -0500 reply
The scary thing about this parallel you've drawn to the collapse of the market in 1929 is that technology could allow for the same exact thing to happen again, only far worse. In modern scenerio, the money will still exist but with absolutely no proof that it was in fact there. I understand that was not the actual point of your comment, however, it caught my attention and just goes to show again that while technology can be a major convenience, it does have its downfalls and to neglect those flaws could have potentially disastorous consequences.

Alison Sanfacon --jmcceney, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:18 -0500 reply
I toootally know how horrendous it feels when your computer just dies and you lose 6 semesters worth of papers. I took for granted that my computer would store my files forever, so I threw away all my hard copies to save space in my room; in putting all my eggs in one basket (like you said), I lost 3 years worth of clips and material. what a disaster. I guess it would be the same if, like, a hobo stole your briefcase or something and all your stuff was inthere...either way, spreading out your info over multiple media is your best bet for saving your work for posterity.

Brittany Swisher --kcrestfield, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:22 -0500 reply
When it comes to memories, they will always be with us; they cant be stolen. I feel that even if you did put them in a bag, and they were taken you are still going to remember them. This is by people you see, you talk to, people or things you come in contact with. They arent going to let you forgot these so called memories.

Kim Miller --asanfacon, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:59:28 -0500 reply
I agree with Kim as far as needing to save files outside of a computer like on a removable drive. Computers are getting more capable as the years go on, supposedly, but more and more ways to avoid their ruin are being created as well. The back-up systems are necessary in order to safeguard all of the work we do. Now that we have thumb drives and cds to burn to, it would be nice if someone came up with a computer that was human-proof. What I mean by that is that I think computers only screw up if there is something internally wrong with them from the start or the person using it screws it up. Sure there are things like "system restore" which can bring your computer back to an earlier state before everything went wrong, but it doesn't always work the way you want it to.

Patrick Brooks --amoscaritolo, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:00:14 -0500 reply
I think that Patrick brought up a lot of really interesting points in his post. I agree, that we do carry an incredible amount of information on us on a daily basis. For our generation, it is almost impossible to think of a world without cellphones. It is scary to think about this increase in technology. I think that most of our fears lie in the question of what if these devices fail on us. We rely on them so much but they are likely to fail at somepoint.

Jeff Bowers --amarrara, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:00:35 -0500 reply
It's a good point you make that if something is never remembered then how can it be said to have happened. I agree with you there, but I don't know that you give the human mind enough credit for being able to carry its own weight in that regard.

Patrick Brooks --adaly, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:01:12 -0500 reply
Yes, all these technological inventions are great things to help you remember things, but what do you do when all of those shiny new toys break, crash or fall apart? Everything is lost and then maybe you wish you had written it down on a handy piece of paper!

Jeff Bowers --sbailey, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:01:20 -0500 reply
I'm wondering if you've taken the concept of putting things into a bag too literally. Maybe I am just not thinking into it enough. Basically, I just totally disagree with the whole idea of being able to store your life into anything but your mind. If you were able to store things then you would only choose what you wanted to remember. You don't necessarily pick and choose what you put in your mind. You may not remember something from 10 years ago, but as soon as someone else mentions it, you may. You also don't pick your memories and catalog them. Your brain does it for you. There is no way that a "bag" or a computer could ever substitute for your brain.

Alison Daly --sbaldwin, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:01:55 -0500 reply
Alison: In your response, you generally accept the idea that we can use supplements of various sort for our memory; you question whether the computer is stable enough to take over as the single and dominant memory supplement. Fair enough. Still, isn't there are larger underlying claim in Flusser's argument? Isn't he saying that if we could move our memories more permanently into some other medium (say the computer), then we would be free to do and think other things - this is a powerful claim. What do you think? Would this be an advantage?

Sara Bailey --sbaldwin, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:05:40 -0500 reply
Sara: It's important to grasp how keywords function according to Morville. While there may be graphics and other media on the web, everything is tied to keywords. The web - what ties it all together - is keywords. What aspect of words is at work here? It's the ability to name and associate, the linking function of words. Images don't work in precisely the same way.

reply to mwinthrow --sbaldwin, Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:11:21 -0500 reply
Michael: You make the case that we need to worry about our memories and need to hold them partially in mind. This need and worry are important because they keep us motivated - they keep our memories and thoughts significant. They give them focus and immediacy. So, Flusser's argument is flawed because the offloaded memories would really no longer be memories. They need to stay connected to us (in your argument). In this sense, no technology can really be separated from the humans that use it.

April Marrara --sbaldwin, Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:34:59 -0500 reply
April: Your response suggests that you agree with Morville and you see his arguments as pertinent to our experience of the web. I wonder, however, about your assessment of the obstacles to findability. You argue that the problem is lack of centralization on the web; the web is wide and open, without any unity. Certainly, the problem is finding things but is unity or centralization the answer? Morville's focus on ambient findability doesn't argue for centralization per se. Yes, he argues that everything should be "findable" wherever it is, whether on the web or in real space. But notice that his emphasis is tagging (keywords), so linkages not in relation to a center but to enable all things to link to eachother. So, the question is whether unity needs centralization or rather a more navigable and meaningful connectivity?

Angela Moscaritolo --sbaldwin, Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:08:42 -0500 reply
Angela: I think you're correct that humans make considerable use of technology supplementing and offloading of our memory - numbers in a cell phone are a good example. You also suggest that if we continue with this we will indeed be "lighter" in the sense that we can focus on immediate or everyday activities, without the burden of the many memories we carry around. Would this be a good thing? Perhaps...? We would perhaps get more done in the present and perhaps be able to understand and interact more on a daily basis?

response to "The "Bag" --sbaldwin, Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:47:11 -0500 reply
Emily: Of course, he's not talking about computers at all. He's literally talking about a bag, like a purse or a backpack... The question is whether we can generalize from his argument to computers. Certainly, we can see the computer as like the bag - with many compartments, etc. In your response, you focus on the bag (and memory) as equivalent to our identity. So, in this view, the loss of the bag is like the loss of identity and - in turn - like the danger of identity theft online. Now, can you move from this to the question he poses at the end of the essay? He suggests that in fact the bag and the facts/documents/memories that we associate with identity are somewhat disposable or at least are things we can put aside - identity is what is left over after those things are subtracted. This isn't the way we always think of identity, but is he right to make this argument?

Erica Reib --sbaldwin, Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:01:16 -0500 reply
Erica: In your response, you're agreeing with Flusser on the fact that we do externalize our memory in lists and other forms; you don't yourself do this with a computer and you're not sure if that's possible. Keep in mind that he's not arguing for computers per se in the article. He is, however, asking to us imagine being able to externalize all of our memory, either with computers or with huge numbers of lists, or whatever. What would he have then - what would we be then, if we could think other things? It's an interesting question, isn't it?

Erica O'Briant --sbaldwin, Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:42:43 -0500 reply
Erica: So, you'd say that we put so much of our life and identity into these memory supplements that we can not so easily give them up - or at least so easily think of distancing ourselves from them. In a way, we cannot think of our identities separate from these supplements.

Jennifer Habina --sbaldwin, Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:49:41 -0500 reply
Jennifer: OK. Good response!

Patrick Brooks --sbaldwin, Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:41:07 -0500 reply
Patrick: Good response. You show how reliant we become on our bags. It's hard to imagine doing without all these devices! Flusser suggests they free us up to think - is this true?

Meghann Wilson --sbaldwin, Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:44:21 -0500 reply
Meghann: Your response shows how reliant we are on these tools. Flusser is suggesting that we could let go and offload more and more onto our "bags." We would then worry less about it and be able to think more... Is he right? Would it work this way?

Alison Sanfacon --sbaldwin, Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:48:15 -0500 reply
Alison: Yes, we invest a lot in our materials, notes, etc.; it would be disturbing to lose all this. Yet Flusser is arguing that this would be a good thing in the end - he asks "are we lighter and therefore progress more quickly into the future when our bags are lifted from us?" He's asking us to think past the immediate trauma of the loss and asks if it actually could be liberating.

Kristen Crestfield --sbaldwin, Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:49:16 -0500 reply
Kristen: OK, good response!

Andrea Dispenza --sbaldwin, Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:56:15 -0500 reply
Andrea: Good response. What do you think of Flusser's suggestion that we should give up our "bags" in order to think more freely?

Brittany Swisher --sbaldwin, Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:48:24 -0500 reply
Brittany: Good response. I'm interested in the word "paralleling," when you say that a tool or object like the bag and our memories are paralleling. I think you're right, but I wonder if there needs to be a different word? Paralleling suggests that the bag is "like" out memory, but isn't it actually a part of it and not merely like it? Doesn't the bag let us remember things we wouldn't remember otherwise?