Search results for "C_THR86_2305 Latest Study Guide 📟 Reliable C_THR86_2305 Test Sample ⌛ C_THR86_2305 Braindumps 🥈 Open [ www.pdfvce.com ] and search for [ C_THR86_2305 ] to download exam materials for free 🤲Test C_THR86_2305 Lab Questions"
| Results 941 - 950 of 1053
|
Page 95 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[…]systems? (Here we might consider the work of Donald Knuth as written about by Douglas Hofstadter [1985], in an approach quite different from that of Kittler, an approach more deeply embedded within praxis, rather than invented at the distance of theory. My own dissatisfaction with Kittler always comes back to a suspicion that he doesn’t really know the tools and practices he writes about, that in fact the problem with his work is precisely that he writes ABOUT technologies of production, not in an intimate, hands-on engagement with them – and I wonder what Cayley thinks about this.) How do […]
[…]the letters from falling. Which letters will fall next, and whether one can catch enough letters to form legible words, however, is unpredictable. As with the Poetic Garden, there are also moments when the letters “escape” from one’s control by falling or flowing out of one’s reach. But because the structure of the interaction is clear, these moments of surprise become pleasurable, not confusing. Both the Poetic Garden and Text Rain are successful in part because the structures of their interactions are clear in the ways that Gorbet describes, but these pieces hold the user’s interest because the systems’ responses […]
[…]“Every sign, linguistic or non-linguistic… can… break with every given context, engendering [and inscribing itself in] an infinity of new contexts in a manner which is absolutely illimitable” (Derrida 1988, 79). See also Derrida, Writing and Difference. From a different perspective we encounter the rhizomatic “flows” and “lines of flight” of Deleuze and Guattari. They articulate a space of electric flows that function in an amorphous continuum, where the flow “enters into a relationship with another flow, such that the first defines a content and the second, an expression. The deterritorialized flows of content and expression are in a state […]
[…]locked behind a screen, the screen and keyboard can also be seen as part of the text. Where do I stop and where does the machine begin when I type these words, or when I engage with an art piece? I can carefully see myself as separate from the machine, but sometimes I dive down imagining we are one, like Kristeva’s infant before she knows she is herself and not part of her mother. That blurred space (continuum) where I can’t tell the difference between me and it is a place of chaos and creativity, of magic and horror alike. […]
[…]and its placement on a page is not transparent to the meaning, but calls attention to itself and to the ways it allows for multiple kinds of readings. Seaman’s work with technological emergence, it seems to me, could be a quite compelling part of looking at textuality in this way, because it could make us aware of “other” aspects of text. Bill Seaman […]
[…](of the lived environment) intermingling the body, technology and thought. It is important to open up the discourse surrounding this question. Focusing the technology through the authorship of forms of experiential environment seems to be one answer, as does finding new ways to articulate the body/technology/thought relation. In particular it is important to talk about how experiential meaning differs from meaning production through words. Such discourse should encompass the following: the physicality of sound as sensual; the spatial qualities of virtual environments; the authored physics or E-phany physics (playful physics) of such spaces. Differing qualities of physical interface that engage […]
[…]a necessary prerequisite of evolution. No variation, no evolution. It would be a mistake, however, to compare genetic and memetic evolution too closely—so there is really no opposition or direct correlation with Jeremijenko’s piece. Perhaps the greatest difference between biological and idea cloning is that, in a culture that is driven by digital technologies, memes can indeed be identical copies or clones. But then, this has been true since the emergence of the printing press. And soon enough, no matter what form ideas move through, they do start to mutate and vary, and the identical copies are simply a step […]
[…]devices. These included a light switch actuated with your voice rather than your finger. In order to toggle the switch, you had to put your hands on your temples and say the words “mind power,” parodying the ambitions of the Human Computer Interaction field. The light switch would toggle on. However, the light nearby would not go on. In order to operate that, you had to say the word “click” brightly. (Crisp plosives are easier to recognize.) As a human, this speech recognition chip made you perform like a switch. Observing one’s own performance in this simple role was entertaining […]
[…]the connective, conductive space between. [Memmott, e-mail communication (November 12, 2000)] To see the results, consider the following passage describing the appearance of Echo, associated with the collapse of the original into the simulation, so there is no longer an ontological distinction between “real” and “artificial” life. From out of NO.where, Echo appears in the private space of Narcissus.tmp to form a solipstatic community (of 1,ON) with n.tmp, at the surface. The two machines — the originating and the simulative — collapse and collate to form terminal-I, a cell.f, or, cell…(f) that processes the self as outside of itself–in realtime. […]
[…]by the mediated parameters of our displayed personalities — where our emotional allegiances are free to take any form. As much as we try to avoid it, we all know people who, in real life, cannot or will not mediate their behavior to consensus modes. I am not necessarily talking about criminal extremes. This is more about, let’s say, parishioners in Salt Lake City who may blithely wear see-through garments to religious services, colleagues who have no scruples on issues of shared workload or intellectual property, and authority figures obsessed with the forest with no regard whatsoever for the trees. […]