the interface

1. because technology rules so much of our lives that it can change the way we percieve people, objects, news, etc. in "real" life as well in technology based interactions, why don't we place more control on the orginization on it? we have created a means of transfering information that affects the messages it transmitts and brings its own messages, and by this we have created a being that suddenly has power over us. we, as lay people use computers and technology daily yet, I for one don't understand a bit of what is occuring on the coding level. And this ignorance is so incredibly dangerous, as it affects nearly every aspect of the way we percieve the world. So, why is it that we aren't more informed about the technology? is it simply that humans are lazy and want the convience of technology without the trouble of untangling its coding? is it that we are oblivious and don't realize the potential for distortion and manipulation? is it that the majority of us are too stupid to understand the way it works? is it that we are just apathetic and don't give a shit?

2. can anything exist without the medium to transfer it? doesn't the medium then become part of the information, because it is a) necessary to the transmitting and b) as stated earlier, affects the raw data/art/information? are there millions of ideas and feelings floating about that we aren't even aware of and we have only found mediums to describe a small, small percentage of the total? that doesn't mean that those ideas/feelings/whatever don't exist just because we can see/understand/articulate them? or does it?

The Language of New Media Questions

Lots of text on that page, isn't there? I did come up with a couple of things as I read through it, though.

I don't know how exactly to connect "Blade Runner" to what the text is talking about, exactly. The text talks a lot about the validity of art and culture created through the digital interface. Is the comparison between run-down, unacceptable "Blade Runner" and the smooth cool Mac a parallel to that?

Is the ability to "replicate" art through copy and paste throwing originality into question, somehow? Shouldn't the original work put in by the original artist still cound unquestionably as an original piece, even if a file can be copied out digitally pixel by pixel, through a different process?