I will admit upfront that I struggle to understand or be invested in the workings of machines or the way they work. I am certainly grateful for the advances in technology, and I am interested to see how events led to the advancement of technology in the ways that they did, but the more specific details like the vacuum tubes generally tend to confuse me.

I think Professor O’Malley did a good job, however in explaining the situation of the Cold War and how it lead to the creation and expansion of the internet. One thing that made me interested at the start of the lecture was when Professor O’Malley mentioned how colleges grew during World War Two and the Cold War thanks to the GI Bill. It’s hard for me to conceive college not being important, but the government realized during the wars that the future would belong to the educated, and thus helped veterans get into college during that time, where the universities expanded.

It’s also interesting to see how computers went from merely tracking trajectories of missiles and such to becoming a more fluid way of translating and sending information between researchers. The subject of how information is relayed to people is one that we actually read up on before class in the essay As We May Think, by Vannevar Bush.

Vannevar Bush was seen as the second most important person during World War 2, being the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. He had to make sure that the right information and developments during the war from various researchers were going to the right people, a very important job, especially during such a troubled time.

As We May Think, however, tackles an interesting subject. Bush believed that the process and spread of information should be more open for the people, and that the threads of information should be able to be compiled easily and gracefully in comparison to the rigid catalog of information at the time.

I think it is safe to say that the internet, which was being developed for over decades with the example of Arpanet, is borne from Bush’s ideas. The accessibility of information is something that I take for granted, but hearing all of this has opened my eyes in terms of how much work went into something that has become a daily part of the society that I live in. I hope to learn more about the origins of the various aspects of the internet as this class goes along, whether from lectures or the assigned readings.

The Cold War is a fascinating time to look back on. The politics of the world shifted as countries gained and lost power, and the way that technology evolved and changed has ramifications that are still felt today.

Of course, while we discussed the Cold War in class, we began with a recap on the differences between Idealism and Realism, a discussion that we had in the last class. It was more of a reminder of what we discussed, and then we moved on to the topic of rationalization, which was guided to us by a German philosopher named Max Weber. Weber described rationalization as the process that one goes through when they grow up in the modern world. The more we learn and grow, the more modern life drives away superstition and magic.

What interested me was what we talked about next. Weber said that the key instrument that shaped the modern world is record keeping. As a History major, it always makes me perk up when the importance of recording history, regardless of the topic, is brought up. We also talked about Montgomery Meigs, and his role in developing a rather complex system in the Pension Office for moving around pensions and such in the aftermath of the Civil War. What got my attention was discussing how the system he created was really practical, but he was trying to use a system that wouldn’t be in use for another few years. Trying to essentially see the future would be a near-impossible task for anybody.

We went into the history of the Cold War, from how the United States and the Soviet Union came into conflict after being allied in World War Two, to how they had proxy wars in Vietnam and Korea, with the countries being split into North and South.  We also discussed the videos that we were required to watch for the class, with Professor O’Malley talking about how he enjoyed seeing the workings of computers during the Cold War.

We also talked about Eisenhower and his Military Industrial Complex. A Military Industrial Complex mainly refers to how the United States had become far more focused on military might in the aftermath of World War Two, especially in the Cold War. It was certainly surprising when we brought George Mason into the mix, as Professor O’Malley explained that a surprising amount of money is put into George Mason’s defense.

One topic that I am still trying to learn is the idea that we become less free the more individuality we have. I suppose the idea is that the more interests and characteristics we have that define us, the easier it is for the government to put us under a label and keep track of us. It’s something that I hope we discuss more in depth in the future.

I never thought that a philosophical discussion between realism and idealism would take place in my History 390 class.

The discussion began with Professor O’Malley going over “The Medium is the Message” again. I will admit that I actually understand the idea behind “The Medium is the Message” much easier this time, although I will say that I think the Professor should keep the slides accompanying his lecture up for a little longer, as it was difficult for me to write down the notes from the slide, especially when i tried to write down the definitions and the examples that were on the slides, such as how the American History museum is a medium, because it is a means of communication, holding models and artifacts of the past, saying that history does not belong to you, that it is being protected from you. I think it’s an interesting idea, but not one that I’ve given much thought to.

Then again, we had also discussed how some aspects of life, such as texting or compressed music, are normal to us because we grew up into it. It’s not an idea that’s new to me or anything, as the times and culture that we grow up in very much have an influence on the world around us.

The topic shifted into a discussion that has been debated for over two thousand years, the topic of idealism vs realism. An idealist believes that there is a perfect, ideal world somewhere, a model of perfection for everything, whether it be food, clothes, or something grander like justice. It was amusing to me when we discussed the statue of David, pointing out how it is an ideal of the human body. I actually just finished my History 100 class just before, and we discussed the statue of David there as well due to how it was made in the Renaissance, a time that celebrated the human body and humans’ place in the natural world. It was also noted that if you are an idealist, you are probably religious, as the God that one would believe in would be the ideal state of being that one believes in.

A realist is somebody who doesn’t believe in the ideal world. There isn’t really an ideal shirt or ideal food, just items and ideas that are good enough. They can be improved, certainly, but there isn’t really a perfect world that contains the best of everything.

Professor O’Malley challenged us in an interesting way here. He pointed out that if an idealist believed in and worked towards what they considered ideal, then they would search the best food, the best culture, the best clothes that existed. When someone protested that that would be too expensive, Professor O’Malley responded that no one said that living the life of an idealist was easy.

I will say that I consider myself a realist. I don’t believe in an ideal state of anything, but I do thing that things can always be improved. I just find it difficult to believe in a perfect world, since tastes and opinions are always different. Perfection is different for everyone.

I will admit that this is probably the most interesting class lecture so far.

I think the book we were required to finish, What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains: The Shallows by Nicholas Carr, is both interesting and frustrating at the same time. It is well-researched, and the callbacks that Carr makes to old inventions that we take for granted such as the printing press is very well done. It points out how something that we take for granted nowadays was world-changing when it was introduced. It’s the same with the internet, and how it developed. Carr actually tied the development of the internet to how he believes the internet has eroded our brains and concentration. He notes how we typically have multiple tabs open whenever we’re on the internet, and how we need to have our attention grabbed by something at all times.

While I agree him in the sense that I believe that the internet has been a negative influence on our concentration and such, I think he would have done better if he made the book less repetitive. I also think that he is pessimistic on how the internet is detrimental to society. We discussed in class how Carr thinks the internet has made it more difficult for us to separate our private and public personas. While he might have an argument, I would say that as a society we have simply come to understand that it is more comfortable for people to be who they are with each other, and that it is important for us to be more familiar with each other to spread our own individuality.

We would also tie this into the slides that we were required to read before class. Specifically, how new technology has changed the world even when we take it for granted in the present. With technology such as photography and video, we can preserve something for years after they are gone, giving us control over space and time. Along with this, we also went into the idea of “The Medium is the Message”, and how what we use for writing or messages can be influenced by the method and technology we use to communicate.

We also discussed the aspect of oral and literate focused societies, using the Socratic method. Socrates was an orator, and never wrote anything. He would ask people questions to make them defend and strengthen their viewpoints, or even make them question their own teachings if they found a flaw in them. The class talked about the advantages and disadvantages of oral and literate societies, mainly how oral societies discuss issues and are forced to memorize many aspects of life that literate cultures remember by using books. I am more partial to literate cultures myself, though I can see how oral societies with their methods are useful, it’s quite difficult for me to remember many things and find textbooks and the like to be very helpful.

We finished the class with the evolution of film, as Professor O’Malley showed us how the perspective of film has changed with the primitive aspects of an old film about men saving a women and child from a house on fire. He contrasted this by pointing out the omniscient point of view the audience enjoys with Saving Private Ryan, noting all of the perspectives that would be odd if we didn’t take them for granted.

This was definitely one of the most interesting classes that I’ve had this semester. I look forward to the next one.

This class set an interesting precedent on what to expect from the next few lectures. Then again, perhaps it would be more accurate to them discussions.

As expected, we were required to read and watch material to be prepared for the discussion that would take place in the class. The first of these was a Wikipedia article on the Loudness War, which delved into the history and controversy of increasing the audio levels in recorded music. The article was accompanied by a video titled “The Loudness War”, a short demonstration of the effect that compression has on music. We were also required to read “Has pop music gotten worse?”, which touched on many criticisms and observations made of modern pop music. It was difficult for me to truly understand the topic of compression, but this article was interesting in the way it pointed out many facets of modern pop music, such as the rather reflective nature of pop music and the repetitive lyrics that seem common in modern music.

I will admit that I dismissed the claim in the “Has pop music gotten worse?” article about how pop music isn’t as good as it was in the old days. I never considered old music to be inherently better than modern music, as I have heard similar claims about movies and television shows. I have always believed that nostalgia was a strong influence on someone’s tastes, which I consider true for certain songs that I personally enjoy.

This was something that we discussed in length during class. Why did we consider the old songs to be better? Professor O’Malley took the role of a disgruntled man from the previous generation, one that looked down on our music and what we did to older music when we compressed it for broadcasting.

I was amused by this at first, but the discussion quickly grabbed my interest when we discussed how compression actually does more to music than merely making it louder. We discussed how music can be simple, easily absorbed, something that we didn’t want to think too hard about. Someone brought up how we could be driving when listening to music, and a driver would want something that could be entertaining but not distracting while driving.

Professor O’Malley brought up a point that was simple and clear. “You should pay attention to something you’re listening to.” An piece of rather obvious advice, but advice that one might need to hear.

The topic of compression was covered in dynamic range. Professor O’Malley brought up a chart that showed the dynamic range of modern day singers is quite low, even with a well-regarded artist such as Adele. He did admit that he thought Adele had a good voice, but she was hampered by compression, unable to allow her voice range to shine when it was downplayed by effects.

I wished that I had asked more questions about the issue of dynamic range and compression, but the monotony of current music is something that I agree with on some level, even if I feel it is overblown in some cases. The way that music remains static in terms of volume throughout a song is noticeable, but I wonder if we could find similar examples through the ages, and if modern technology allowed the issue of compression to be more apparent.

I was a little surprised to see what kind of class this was, at least in how it was structured.

Professor O’Malley made a decent introduction on the rules and expectations for this class, guiding us through the syllabus and letting us know what he wanted from us in terms of blogging and class participation. He also explained that we should be prepared for the final assignment by getting accustomed to musical production software like GarageBand, a task that I need to get started on now because of my inexperience with the software.

Professor O’Malley then began to discuss a topic that would be continued in the next class, the difference of taste in music between generations and the compression of sound that is prevalent in modern music. We listened to musical pieces such as “Firework” by Katie Perry, “I say a little prayer” by Aretha Franklin, and “Havana” by Camila Cabello. We were told to listen to the compression in the songs, but I remember only hearing something like that in “Havana”, though I was unsure if I was correct.

Perhaps it would have been better for us to go through was compression stood for more thoroughly, but it was a discussion we would go through with more depth in the next class. This first class ended around thirty minutes in, a surprise for me, but I walked away from the class more curious about the material, and was looking forward to the reading requirements for the next class when I returned to my dorm.

Welcome to onMason. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!