Robyn Phelan

From Hst250
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiki Topic 1: Bletchley Park

Bletchley Park, in Buckinghamshire, England, was home to the Government Code and Cypher School on during World War II. The school was moved to Bletchley Park on August 15, 1939. The workers and work done at Bletchley Park was crucial to the outcome of World War II.

At Bletchley Park, the employees worked on decoding the German Enigma and the Lorenz Cipher. Both of these were thought to be unbreakable, and were decrypted at Bletchley Park due to sloppy behavior by the German operators. The intelligence gathered was vital to the Allies success in defeating the U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic. The work completed at Bletchley Park is thought to have significantly shortened the war, and part of that work can be attributed to the invention and use of both the Bombe and the Colossus Mark 2, two essential computers developed during that time.

The Bombe was an electromechanical machine, and designed by Alan Turing. It was 7 feet by 6 feet 6 inches by 2 feet and weighed about a ton. It was created with the purpose of discovering the daily settings of the Enigma and to crack the code. Every day it read about 4,000 messages.

The Colossus Mark 2 was the first programmable digital computer. It was designed and built by Tommy Flowers. The Colossus Mark 2 was built to help decipher messages that were encrypted by the German Lorenz Cypher.

During its peak there were 9,000 workers employed at Bletchley Park. These workers ranged from mathematicians and electrical engineers to chess champions and crossword experts. After the United States joined the war, American cryptographers were also posted in Bletchley Park. Each person was recruited by personal networking and were each chosen for their intellectual achievements. Women who were trustworthy and reliable were recruited for administrative and clerical tasks in the same way. The staff had to sign an Official Secrets Act and was told they should not discuss their work outside the immediate section. It was common practice to not ask other workers about their work in order to help maintain secrecy. Even decades after the war was over, the workers still did not talk about what they did. It was only in the 1970’s that workers felt comfortable finally talking about what they did and the work was revealed to the general public.

The information gathered was also held to the strictest security measures. The extent of the existence of Bletchley Park was never fully shared with the Soviet Union. This reflected Winston Churchill’s concern with security regarding the information during the war, which was code-named “Ultra” to preserve the secrecy of the work. Blueprints were also destroyed after the war to continue the secrecy of what occurred.

After the war, Bletchley Park was turned into a museum. The National Museum of Computing rents space from the Bletchley Park Trust, the organization that now runs the site, to house some historic computers. The museum is open to the public and the park licensed for ceremonies as well.


Works Cited

"Bletchley Park in WWII." Wartime History at Bletchley Park. Bletchley Park National Codes Centre. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/hist/wartime.rhtm>.

"Bletchley Park." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 14 May 2012. Web. 19 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park>.

Watrall, Ethan. "HST 250 Week 1 Lecture." Lecture. History 250. Web. 16 May 2012. <http://history.msu.edu/hst250/schedule-2/>.


Wiki Topic 2: Mike Mayfield/Star Trek

Star Trek was originally a television series with the characters Captain James T. Kirk, Spock, Dr. Leonard Bones, Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, and Pavel Chekov. These characters were critical in the television show as well as the fan culture that resulted from the series. The central story of Star Trek is that characters are on the starship Enterprise and explore different galaxies in space. It originally aired in 1966, running for three seasons, ending in 1969. The show was very popular and prompted the creating of games and comics based off of the original ideas.

The Star Trek video game came out after the original Star Trek television show ended. Mike Mayfield watched the series with a few of his friends and became fans. One day, Mayfield and his friends came up with ideas for the video game after watching the series and he began writing the game on a SDS Sigma 7. In this game, the player assumes command of the USS Enterprise. The mission is to hunt down and destroy Klingon warships that are invading the quadrants of the galaxy the Enterprise is stationed in. The game starts out with a description of what is expected: The player must hunt down Klingon ships in the given time, using long-range scanners to search for ships nearby, and then moving to the new quadrant using warp drive. The players use either photon torpedoes or phasers to shoot down Klingon ships and they must move around stars and other obstacles in the galaxy. Included in the programming of the game is a calculator so the player can calculate the angle at which they need to shoot their weapons to take down the Klingon ships. The game ends with either the Klingons being destroyed, the Enterprise is destroyed, or time runs out.

Mayfield had the SDS Sigma 7 because he had it from the University of California and worked on programming the game during his summer vacations. Later, Mayfield bought a HP-35 and programmed the game in Hewlett Packard BASIC in 1972. He also continued to visit the sales store to receive help programming the game. Through a deal with Hewlett Packard, Mayfield was given time on an HP2000 minicomputer as long as he put his game on it.

After Mayfield created the game and programmed it, David Ahl ported it to the DEC BASIC-PLUS and sent it out in a newsletter, rapidly spreading the game around to fellow fans. After, Mary Cole with the help of David Ahl, translated it to BASIC-PLUS for RSTS-11 in 1973. After this and once it was published in 101 BASIC Computer Games, other people translated to game on other operating systems.

Bob Leedom updated the original Star Trek game, including adding additional galactic quadrant names, damage and status reports, and also used a more powerful library computer. This updated version was name “Super Star Trek” by David Ahl. This version was published in the “microcomputer Edition” of BASIC Computer Games in 1978, after which, it was converted to MicroSoft 8K BASIC by John Borders.

Works Cited

"Star Trek." Star Trek. 26 Mar. 2005. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://www.dunnington.u-net.com/public/startrek/>.

"Star Trek (text Game)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(text_game)>.

"Star Trek." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 06 Mar. 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek>.

Wiki Topic 3: Creative Commons

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization with the intention to allow people to legally expand and build on creative works made by others and for them to share those works. Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson, and Eric Eldred founded it in 2001. This program has released Creative Commons Licenses that allow people the ability to manipulate other people’s works of art, free of charge. Different licenses allow different levels of manipulation. People can look up what rights the original creators hold and which ones they waived to allow others to express their creativity. The license released is based on the copyright laws and replaces negotiations between the copyright owner, or the licensor, and the licensee, or the person wanting to manipulate the work to create their own. This program allows other users to expand their own creativity.

There are many companies that support Creative Commons including Google, Mozilla Foundation, Best Buy, eBay, Microsoft Corporation, and Nike. As of 2011 there were over 100 affiliate networks working all around the world that are in over 70 jurisdictions.

There are different types of licenses that are available from Creative Commons. The original licenses created gave users “baseline rights”. There four different conditions. These four conditions are Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works, and Share-alike. These four conditions can be combined to make sixteen possible combinations for the different licenses. The most commonly used licenses are Attribution alone, Attribution and No Derivatives, Attribution and Share Alike, Attribution and Noncommercial, Attribution and Noncommercial and No Derivatives, and Attribution and Noncommercial and Share Alike. In all of these licenses, there is the ability to use the creation for non-commercial purposes without needing to modify it.

Copyright is a major source of controversy. The Creative Commons is involved in the controversy since it affects copyright. Copyright was enacted to give creators rights to their work. Many people have opinions on whether or not copyright laws should be allowed or whether or not they are applicable to certain situations. Some criticism of Creative Commons is that it does not meet the needs of the financial compensation artists are entitled to when they create something. Many artists need to support themselves on the work they create and part of how they can make money is when others pay to use their work. By giving rights to other people to use the work, they are missing out on money. Another critique is that some of the licenses that are available are incompatible with each other. So, works that are covered by different licenses that are incompatible might not be able to be combined later. There is some worry that because of this, some works might be unshareable if they mix licenses unintentionally, and as a result there would need to be a common legal framework to make sure it does not happen. This is particularly important to take note of because the Noncommercial licenses cannot be combined with the Attribution Share Alike licenses, and those are two of the most commonly used licenses available. Despite these criticisms, people believe programs like the Creative Commons help promote creativity and should be further expanded.

Works Cited

"Copyright." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 24 June 2012 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>.

"Creative Commons License." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 22 June 2012 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license>.

"Creative Commons." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 22 June 2012 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons>.

Wiki Article: Computers and Communication

“If I want to make myself more attractive… I don’t get a new haircut – I update my profile. That’s just how it is,” (Mary, He’s Just Not That Into You). This statement describes our society today perfectly. Today, almost everyone uses the Internet and computers. Many people are constantly going on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites to let their friends know what they have been up to and to see what their friends have been up to as well. Most of our communication with our friends is done online instead of face to face like it was before previously; before the Internet. We use Facebook, Skype, e-mail, texting, Face-Time, other video chats, Twitter, and many other websites and software to stay in touch with friends and family, and even to meet new people. Even using a phone to communicate with someone has changed; now phones can text, Blackberry Messaging, email, and other types of communication. Social networking sites have applications for phones as well, so people can constantly stay connected. Ways of communication have become more efficient and almost instantaneous. Our view of how we think about communicating with others and how we actually interact with them has changed as a result. The computer has had a profound impact on communication in our social lives.

First, to analyze the changes in communication, it is important to not only look at the effects that have resulted, but also the differences in using each type of communication. Trevino and Webster (1992) analyzed the flow of communication in work places through computer technology sources, comparing electronic mail to voice mail. They found that there was a more positive outcome and a more positive attitude associated when messages were sent electronically rather than through voice mail (Trevino & Webster, 1992). The authors state that this is constant with what other studies have found when comparing electronic communication to vocal communication. Voice mail is sometimes thought of as a barrier that halts communication, while electronic mail allows it to flow more freely (Trevino & Webster, 1992). The conclusion was also reached that there is more communication between people when using electronic mail compared to voice mail (Trevino & Webster, 1992). Messages that were sent through electronic communications typically contained more words than the voice mail messages left on answering machines (Trevino & Webster, 1992). It is becoming more common in our society to use technology like electronic mail for most communication and has become our go to form of communication. We are moving towards using the older and more traditional ways of communication as a back up when people do not respond fast enough to our messages sent electronically. Trevino and Webster (1992) also have the idea that we use electronic communication as our fall back because of the comfort with using computers, however they do mention that they did not have any research to support this idea (Trevino & Webster, 1992). But it does make sense. If someone is comfortable using a computer to send messages and likes having the ability to revise what you want to communicate, they would prefer to use that type of communication more than one where they would not be as confortable. With voice mail, you also cannot revise what you communicate to the other person as easily without it sound like rambling. This time we take to revise our thoughts is important for our interactions (Walther, 1996). We use that time to reflect on what is going on in the conversation, what we want to happen, and we can make the conversation better quality. In addition to finding more comfort in electronic communication, some also believe that communicating in person requires more effort on our part (Walther, 1996). When communicating through technology, most of the time you only have to focus on the words. On the other hand, when communicating face to face, you need to be completely involved in the conversation. This means being involved emotionally and with your sense as well (Walther, 1996). In face-to-face conversations, you are submerged in what is going on, but that is not necessarily the case when using technology. It is much easier to multi task because the other person is not with you in the room.

While much about communication that has changed, there are certain parts that are still the same, even with the new means of communicating. With the increase in electronic communication, the term virtual community has been created. A virtual community, according to Shen, Huang, Chu, and Liao (2010) is a group of people who share a common interest and have repeated contact with each other through some sort of electronic technology. It is not exactly like the communities we can form with the people around us, but it can substitute for part of the communication people should have in their lives. In a virtual community, if one member believes they are similar to other members, they have more motivation to engage in different activities with the other members (Shen, Huang, Chu, & Liao, 2010). This is still the same as what occurs in a physical community. We feel loyal and connected to people who are similar to us, and will interact with those people. This is why people become friends with other people who play the same sports as them, or have the same religion, or have the same hobby. Similarities bonds people together. This virtual community, while a new concept, still contains communication factors that have been around since before the Internet, like belonging to a group and communicating with them.

The new forms of technology communication can complicate the traditional boundaries of what communication has previously been defined as. Although the technology creates a separation from others because of physical location, it can give the opportunity to create thee virtual communities. The virtual community also has different conditions, such as interpersonal interaction experiences, that need to be taken into account in order to fully understand what they are and the impact they have. Shen, Huang, Chu, and Liao (2010) conducted a study to discover whether having a positive interaction with the virtual community would increase the amount of loyalty a member had for the community. They found that there was no effect on the positive interaction and loyalty, but predicted this outcome to be a result from the various personal goals of the different members in the community (Shen, Huang, Chu, & Liao, 2010). In a physical community, people would have more than just similar interests connecting them with the other members. Since a virtual community is not a binding as a physical community, people might only join because of a need. Therefore, they follow different guidelines than what we are sued to. For example, one could join a virtual community to get some tips for studying for an exam, so their only motivation to interact with the other members would be to receive helpful tips from them or to give them tips. They would not hang out with the other members every day, or even talk to them every day like they would with people physically in their community. So, there would not be as strong a bond holding them in the community, as there would be with people who were around every day and who were physically in your community and near you. Discovering these differences between physical communities and virtual communities was made possible through the development of the Internet. The development of the Internet made it possible to have a virtual community and also opened up and affected how we view communication because we are now able to include the virtual communities in our communication schema.

In an article by Grant Blank, he talks about some other implications on the social world as a result of the Internet. One point he brings up is that by using the Internet, one is able to stay in touch with other people and that the cost has decreased to allow everyone the ability to communicate and connect with others no matter where they are located (Blank, 1997). Since the cost has gone down, it opens up the communication to more people because they no longer have to pay the long distance fees to call family members who are far away. The act of communicating itself has also been simplified, resulting from the technology progresses (Blank, 1997). As a result, people can be connected to others through similar interests instead of just location. If people communicate with others somewhere else in the world, like another continent, then they will not be able to talk face to face. Therefore, even if they are connecting with more people, they are still becoming isolated because although they are communicating with someone, it is not the same type of communication and the communication is limited. Only your words can get through to the other person since they might not be able to see you and therefore you do not get the opportunity to read body language and communicate in other non-verbal ways. In addition, people are able to pursue private interests that they have to connect with people who have similar interests (Blank, 1997). The combination of following their own interests and connecting with others who are nowhere near their location allows people to become further isolated from others that are around them.

These changes in communication would not have been possible without a strong base for people to build off of. It first started with improvements on time-sharing. Time-sharing allowed computers, or modules, to connect to a main frame to be able to interact to a certain extent and became a model for computer networking (Week 5 Lecture Video). Some saw the room for improvement and decided to make those improvements. Soon multiple computers in different areas were able to connect to the same main frame (Week 5 Lecture Video). From there, ARPANET was created, connecting multiple nodes together, due to the invention of packet switching and Interface Message Processor (Week 5 Lecture Video). As the number of nodes that could be connected increased, so did the number of things one could do with ARPANET (Week 5 Lecture Video). Electronic Mail was developed first in 1971 and became very popular soon after (Week 5 Lecture Video). Since its first development, the technology has taken off and e-mail is now a convenient and preferred way to contact someone. Today many of us have e-mail on our phone and can be reached by it 24/7. It has become an important part in our lives and an important way to stay in touch with other people and it all started with the idea of time-sharing and trying to improve computer efficiency.

With all the advances in technology, and the effects these changes have, there is a lot of debate over whether the new ways to communicate harms our relationships with others or benefits them. There is some evidence to suggest that people who use the Internet may substitute time online with social and media activities, therefore not harming their social communication because they are still interacting with people in the real world and not only through technology (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). When the television was first introduced, it greatly affected people’s lives and they stopped doing things they normally did for entertainment, like see movies and listen to the radio (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). It was predicted that the Internet and computer would have the same affect, however, this appears to not be true (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). People are still using other sources of entertainment so the Internet does not completely disrupt people’s lives. In addition, it has been found by studies that Internet use either has a positive association with social interaction, or it has no association at all (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). By following these results, it can be concluded that people can use the Internet as much as they like without the fear that it will harm their social interactions.

Another study, on the other hand, summarized by DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, and Robinson (2001), indicates that Internet users will use the Internet to substitute for other interactions. This could potentially harm people’s communication with others because they would be on the Internet instead of utilizing another form of communication or social interaction. As a result, the amount of communication they do can decrease. The same study found that in a family where the Internet was introduced, the people who used the Internet more were associated with a decline in their interaction and communication with family members (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). If one were to follow these results, compared to the other results, then it would be concluded that using the Internet has a negative association with communicating with others in the real world.

Even with all the changes that have occurred with communication due to the emerging technology, there is still a lot that can be improved on or even new ideas that can be created. In Blank’s article, he concludes by discussing predictions for the future of the Internet. He mentions how predictions on improvements on technology, like bandwidth, are easy for people to predict because they will become more efficient (Blank, 1997). On the other hand, he believes it is harder to predict future social implications because, as he states, “we have just invented it, and we do not yet know much about what it will do, “ (Blank, 1997). While we now have the foundation of the Internet, and it has been improved a vast amount since its creation, but there is still so much potential that we have not yet uncovered about it.

Different studies clearly show conflicting results about how the Internet has affected us. However, even though results do not match, they can conclude that the development of technology has had some affect on our communication with others. Web 2.0 has also made it easier to communicate online because it is easier to share information (Week 6 Lecture Video). Although this is a different kind of communication than the studies were evaluating, it is still communication with others. The technologies associated with Web 2.0 can also be used as communication forms; people to get their opinions and stories out to the public use Blogs and Podcasts (Week 6 Lecture Video). Mary from He’s Just Not That Into You has the right idea; we focus our attention on our online image to communicate who we are and what we are like instead of communicating “organically” like was previously done (He’s Just Not That Into You). Times are changing from how they used to be and technology is a big part of it. With the increase in availability of the technology, we are now seeing some effects. Technology, such as electronic mail, has changed how people communicate in the work place and in their personal lives and replaced older forms of communication. It has changed not only our interactions through the web, but also the amount of interactions and communication we do in the real world. As a result, our impressions of communication have changed as well. Nevertheless, as Blank wrote, the future is uncertain. We do not know how these changes will be or how the technology will affect us in the future. In the few years that it has been around, the Internet and computers have already had a lasting impact on society. All of these changes began when people started thinking about what more they could do with computers and time-sharing.

Works Cited

Blank, Grant. "The Road Ahead: Observations on the Role of the Internet." Social Science Computer Review 15.2 (1997): 190-95. Print.

DiMaggio, Paul, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman, and John P. Robinson. "Social Implications of the Internet." Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 (2001): 307-36. Print.

He's Just Not That Into You. Dir. Ken Kwapis. Perf. Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, and Morgan LIly. 2009. DVD.

Shen, Yung-Cheng, Chun-Yao Huang, Chia-Hsien Chu, and Hui-Chun Liao. "Virtual Community Loyalty: An Interpersonal-Interaction Perspective." International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15.1 (2010): 49-73. Print.

Trevino, L. K., and J. Webster. "Flow in Computer-Mediated Communication: Electronic Mail and Voice Mail Evaluation and Impacts." Communication Research 19.5 (1992): 539-73. Print.

Walther, Joseph B. "Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction." Communication Research 23.1 (1996): 3-43. Print.

Watrall, Ethan. "Week 5 Lecture Video." 10 June 2012. Lecture.

Watrall, Ethan. "Week 6 Lecture Video." 17 June 2012.