Predicting the Future

Speaking of The New York Times, have you seen the current Interactive Feature: Predicting the Future of Computing on NYTimes.com?

Readers can post their predictions in categories of Computation, Artificial Intelligence, Transportation & Lifestyle, and Communication. You can then vote on the likeliness of the predictions coming true and change the predicted date if you see fit.

So, will there be a telepathic society by 2280? I think not. WiFi to the brain, Robot Wars, cash is outlawed, curing cancer, flying cars, A.I. government…yikes! What do you think? Do you have your own predictions?

Advertisements

PAGE ONE and Photo 2.0

At the heart of the film is the burning question on the minds of everyone who cares about a rigorous American press, Times lover or not: what will happen if the fast-moving future of media leaves behind the fact-based, original reporting that helps to define our society?

Last night I finally got around to watching PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES.

I was most interested in the conversation that unfolded focusing on new/social media. David Carr at one point says, “Why talk when you can tweet?”, and I instantly flashed back to the Photo 2.0 — Online Photographic Thinking panel discussion with Andy Adams (moderator), Molly Landreth, Amy Stein and Philip Toledano at the SPE Northeast conference last month at Light Work. I’m just realizing now I never posted about it! Where did this last month go?! Anyways, I’ll get around to it, but in the meantime I would like to point out a moment at the end of the discussion when everyone was packing up and leaving for dinner. I walked up to the podium to introduce myself to Andy Adams and found myself waiting in line. While I was on deck, I was behind a woman who was voicing her disgust regarding the presence of Twitter during the panel discussion. See, before the conversation even started, Andy had invited the audience to participate in the Twitter feed using the hashtag #FlakPhoto and/or mentioning @FlakPhoto. While the four panel participants were discussing Photo 2.0 you could look around the auditorium and see more than half of the room tweeting away on their smart phones and devices. I know I was tweeting and re-tweeting and having even Andy re-tweeting my tweets! That was the point! We’re sharing news and communicating on a global scale in real time.

Speaking of real time, the panel discussion was streaming live! Participants were not limited to those sitting in the auditorium of Light Work, but they really could have been viewing and interacting from anywhere.

The question proposed in the quote above, “what will happen if the fast-moving future of media leaves behind the fact-based, original reporting that helps to define our society?” Why does it have to be one or the other? Something to think about, that’s for sure!

I do not subscribe to The New York Times (printed newspaper or online). Honestly, I don’t see a need to. Considering I currently work for a printed journal, I realize how that statement is pure blasphemy. I follow @nytimes and @nytimesarts (among others) on Twitter. I watch my local news. I feel like I’m getting my fill. What do you think? Do you still buy the paper? Why or why not?

__
photos from the Official Movie Site
caption information: A scene from PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

PAGE ONE and Photo 2.0

“At the heart of the film is the burning question on the minds of everyone who cares about a rigorous American press, Times lover or not: what will happen if the fast-moving future of media leaves behind the fact-based, original reporting that helps to define our society?” –Page One

Last night I finally got around to watching PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES.

I was most interested in the conversation that unfolded focusing on new/social media. David Carr at one point says, “Why talk when you can tweet?”, and I instantly flashed back to the Photo 2.0 — Online Photographic Thinking panel discussion with Andy Adams (moderator), Molly Landreth, Amy Stein and Philip Toledano at the SPE Northeast conference last month at Light Work. I’m just realizing now I never posted about it! Where did this last month go?! Anyways, I’ll get around to it, but in the meantime I would like to point out a moment at the end of the discussion when everyone was packing up and leaving for dinner. I walked up to the podium to introduce myself to Andy Adams and found myself waiting in line. While I was on deck, I was behind a woman who was voicing her disgust regarding the presence of Twitter during the panel discussion. See, before the conversation even started, Andy had invited the audience to participate in the Twitter feed using the hashtag #FlakPhoto and/or mentioning @FlakPhoto. While the four panel participants were discussing Photo 2.0 you could look around the auditorium and see more than half of the room tweeting away on their smart phones and devices. I know I was tweeting and re-tweeting and having even Andy re-tweeting my tweets! That was the point! We’re sharing news and communicating on a global scale in real time.

Speaking of real time, the panel discussion was streaming live! Participants were not limited to those sitting in the auditorium of Light Work, but they really could have been viewing and interacting from anywhere.

The question proposed in the quote above, “what will happen if the fast-moving future of media leaves behind the fact-based, original reporting that helps to define our society?” Why does it have to be one or the other? Something to think about, that’s for sure!

I do not subscribe to The New York Times (printed newspaper or online). Honestly, I don’t see a need to. Considering I currently work for a printed journal, I realize how that statement is pure blasphemy. I follow @nytimes and @nytimesarts (among others) on Twitter. I watch my local news. I feel like I’m getting my fill. What do you think? Do you still buy the paper? Why or why not?


photos from the Official Movie Site
caption information: A scene from PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.


01/28/12
PLEASE NOTE: originally posted on my old blog, I’m slowly moving over my favorite posts!

photography

When I first read the article “On (Digital) Photography: Sontag, 34 Years Later” over on The New York Times website I laughed. I have had this conversation with both family and friends over the last few years and it’s interesting to get everyone’s take on the current “flood” of images. Personally, I am extremely “snap-happy” with my digital cameras and BlackBerry. Especially if I’m on vacation I always take thousands of pictures. Now, on occasion I will go out with my Hasselblad and shoot – and find myself putting more thought into every frame. I can be out for hours and end up with 12 images. 12 photos from my ‘Blad = 300 images with my digital cameras. Crazy. Do you still shoot film? Do you find yourself approaching image-making differently?

I noticed Luke mentioned the article on his blog Touching Harms the Art and asked, “We are awash in images. A once precious drip has become an uncontrollable flood. How do we move forward?” Well, how do we move forward?


[image source]