GARY@MAXIMILLION.CP.MCC.COM (Gary Knight) (05/10/89)
I support Bruce's call for sci.commtech. If it's to be moderated, let's have Bruce be moderator since he volunteered the idea! The reason I think it's a good idea is that I'm presently working on some technology forecasting programs for MCC (Austin, TX) and one of those relates to large-scale distributed systems. I find myself pulling information out of several different newsgroups and newslists because each has some tangential concern with Bruce's issue. It would be nice to have a single forum for exchange of information on the new communication technologies, with an "applied" bent. So . . . one "yes" vote. -------
patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) (05/17/89)
In article <610816661.0.GARY@MAXIMILLION.CP.MCC.COM> GARY@MAXIMILLION.CP.MCC.COM (Gary Knight) writes: >I support Bruce's call for sci.commtech. If it's to be moderated, >let's have Bruce be moderator since he volunteered the idea! The reason Ditto - what he said. >.... It would be nice to have a single >forum for exchange of information on the new communication technologies, >with an "applied" bent. So . . . one "yes" vote. Count ** two ** YES votes! -- Patt Haring | My other site is a Public Access UN*X rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth | system: The Big Electric Cat patth@ccnysci.BITNET | 1-212-879-9031 patth@dasys1.UUCP
scratch@cisunx.UUCP (Steven J Owens) (05/17/89)
Make that three yes votes... I am definitely NOT a compsci type (as my
brother, who *is* compsci, keeps telling me :-) but I find computers
extremely fascinating in their potential applications in my chosen field
- communications. This is more than the information age we're entering,
it's the communication age.
Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu
"Yeah. It's a funny picture, isn't it? You're going to kill
yourself. It's the most powerful statement you can make about the way
the world has treated you. That's what Rand says, anyway. And when you
finally get there, there's a high-diving board to add ten feet to the
drop!"
-- _Oath_of_Fealty_ Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle
ken@reuse.USWEST.COM (Kenny A. Chaffin) (05/18/89)
In article <18074@cisunx.UUCP> scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J Owens) writes: > >Make that three yes votes... I am definitely NOT a compsci type (as my >it's the communication age. > Could you please explain this in a little more detail? My view is that most people using the term "information age" use it to include the communication mechanisms necessary to transfer the information, but the term communication age does not (at least to me) imply any _information_ transfer. thanks, KAC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenny A. Chaffin ...uswat!reuse!ken U S WEST Advanced Technologies (303) 930-5356 6200 South Quebec Denver, CO 80231 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
klopfens@ANDY.BGSU.EDU (Bruce Klopfenstein) (05/19/89)
FYI I did not p[ost about the "communication age," so cannot reply as to wha tht eoriginal poster meant. BK
scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J Owens) (05/19/89)
In article <235@reuse.USWEST.COM> ken@reuse.UUCP (Kenny A. Chaffin) writes: >Could you please explain this in a little more detail? My view is that most >people using the term "information age" use it to include the communication >mechanisms necessary to transfer the information, but the term communication >age does not (at least to me) imply any _information_ transfer. > >thanks, >KAC "Information age" does not imply any transfer at all. Think about it. Communication, on the other hand, logically implies that information must be transferred. That is, after all, the definition of communication, is it not? Steven J. Owens | SCRATCH@PITTVMS | Scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu "...'fire' does not matter, 'earth' and 'air' and 'water' do not matter. 'I' do not matter. No word matters. But man forgets reality and remembers words. The more words he remembers, the cleverer do his fellows esteem him. He looks upon the great transformations of the world, but he does not see them as they were seen when man looked upon reality for the first time. Their names come to his lips and he smiles as he tastes them, thinking he knows them in the naming." - Siddartha, _Lord_of_Light_ by Roger Zelazny
ken@reuse.USWEST.COM (Kenny A. Chaffin) (05/20/89)
In article <18108@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J Owens) writes: >In article <235@reuse.USWEST.COM> ken@reuse.UUCP (Kenny A. Chaffin) writes: > >"Information age" does not imply any transfer at all. Think about it. >Communication, on the other hand, logically implies that information must >be transferred. That is, after all, the definition of communication, is >it not? > > I would agree with your definition of communication, but the thing I was getting at was the term _Communication Age_. I am not familiar with this terminology, whereas Information Age appears to be widely used to mean the increasing amount of information flow which is causing major changes in society reguardless of the method of communicating that information, even though that too is important. I was curious as to your meaning for communication age. One can communicate noise, but it seems that the information that is being communicated is what is causing change in society etc. Maybe I should explain that last. The Stuff that is communicated is not information unless it is meaningful to the receipent. Of course dealing with this issue is a lot like the old question - if a tree falls in the forest... Anyway I would be curious to understand your definition of the communication age. Thanks, KAC . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenny A. Chaffin ...uswat!reuse!ken U S WEST Advanced Technologies (303) 930-5356 6200 South Quebec Denver, CO 80231 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J Owens) (05/24/89)
In article <238@reuse.USWEST.COM> ken@reuse.UUCP (Kenny A. Chaffin) writes: >>"Information age" does not imply any transfer at all. Think about it. >>Communication, on the other hand, logically implies that information must >>be transferred. That is, after all, the definition of communication, is >>it not? >> >> > I would agree with your definition of communication, but the thing I was >getting at was the term _Communication Age_. I am not familiar with this >terminology, whereas Information Age appears to be widely used to mean >the increasing amount of information flow which is causing major changes >in society reguardless of the method of communicating that information, >even though that too is important. Where do you get that definition? I do not agree. I can see no indication that Information Age refers to information flow at all. Naturally, there is some flow, as a part of the "information economy" of buying and selling, acquiring and refining information, but the flow is not implicit in the term, nor is all of the flow related to the information economy. On a peripherally related issue, you believe that it is the "information flow" that is causing the change. I agree with you, but the Information Age is generally used to refer to the information industry. And just what exactly is "information flow"? Communication, obviously. > I was curious as to your meaning for communication age. One can >communicate noise, but it seems that the information that is being >communicated is what is causing change in society etc. One _cannot_ communicate "noise." Go ask a communications professor. Communication implies transmission and reception of understandable signals. If the signals are not received, or not understood, or fail to make sense, it is NOT "communication." Think about it. What does the phrase "we're not communicating" mean? Does it mean you can't hear my words? Nope, it means you can't (or aren't) understanding my words. > Maybe I should explain that last. The Stuff that is communicated >is not information unless it is meaningful to the receipent. Of course >dealing with this issue is a lot like the old question - if a tree falls >in the forest... I believe I've sufficiently dealt with this in the above paragraphs. As for the tree, this one is easy. You either start from phenomenological point of view ("All we know about the world is what our senses tell us...") or ask the riddler to define his terms. "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make noise?" Define noise (or sound). By nobody, do you mean "no humans" or do you include animals too? Insects? All of which sidesteps the original idea of the riddle. It's _supposed_ to be insoluble, to help the student achieve a Zen state of mind. People tend to make Zen more mysterious than it has to be. I'm no expert, but it can be simply expressed in western terms as "going with your gut feelings." Ie; don't stop to think about it, do it! > Anyway I would be curious to understand your definition of the > communication age. Oh, is *that* what you wanted? :-) ...I suppose I'd better stop this before it goes branching off into tangents. In my original post I said: Make that three yes votes... I am definitely NOT a compsci type (as my brother, who *is* compsci, keeps telling me :-) but I find computers extremely fascinating in their potential applications in my chosen field - communications. This is more than the information age we're entering, it's the communication age. Okay, I exaggerated a bit. I'm not Compsci, but I do a fair amount of reading in compsci and related fields. In almost every reference to the Information Age I've come across, the emphasis has been upon the salability of information and information manipulating (and gathering) services. Seldom was there any reference at all to communication potential, and almost never to the core of communication, human interaction. Computer technology opens up whole new fields of possibility for interaction and communication among humans. What we're engaged in right now (me writing, you reading) is one of those fields. Think about what we're doing. "Mass Communication" has been defined as communication across time and space to a potentially large number of people from one individual. Traditionally this has meant one person with access to special resources (TV or Radio broadcast equipment, printing presses and the proper distribution system). Occasionally there have been instances of private citizens engaging in mass communication via a newsletter or private newspaper, but these were the exception rathe than the rule, and usually required a great deal of effort and dedication. But here we are, fulfilling those requirements, albeit to a limited audience, at little or no cost to ourselves. Beginning to get the picture? Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu "When you have determined there is going to be violence, where do you like to strike - uh, intellectually, philosophically speaking?" "Intellectually, philosophically speaking? The nuts are good." ----------------------------------------