IP - Inexplicably Perplexing

Whilst the beginning of today's INFS lecture was perhaps relatively easy to understand (if not to follow), the second half confused me slightly (drastic understatement) and kind of made my brain ache (drastic understatement). But, as I have agreed that this subject shall not get the best of me, I soldiered on and made it to the end of the lecture with limited battle wounds and personal scarring.

Following the lingering confusion of last week's lectures, and sensing that it might be a re-occuring predicament that I find myself in, I thought it would be a good idea to do as much terminology research as I could regarding any aspect of information technologies that I thought I would still be having a problem with. Which is a lot. I managed to get a sort of preliminary understanding of things that would commonly be found in discussions about the web. Things like HTML and XML and Javascript and API. I know have a book that is beginning to look like a glossary or dictionary because of all the terms I have written in there. And IP was one of the terms that I had looked up in this preliminary search.

IPs it would seem, are a lot more in-depth than what I originally perceived them to be. I managed quite easily to grasp the idea that you need an individual IP address for each individual device. I mean, look at humanity. Whilst we as humans are rather similar, we each have unique names that separate us from each other. Why shouldn't laptops, desktop computers, printers and iPads be the same? And I also understood what Prof. Long was talking about when he mentioned that the space being taken up by these unique addresses was running out and that we needed to expand that space in order to include more addresses. That's just logical.

But what really got me confused was when Prof. Long started talking about IP stacks and TCP/IP and how these all link together. It was just a lot for me to take in and to understand in what seemed to be a really short amount of time.

So again, I hit the research decks.

IP stands for Internet Protocol, that much is clear. As the principal set of rules of communication used for moving datagrams or network packets from one host to another (that is from one computer hooked up to a computer network, to another computer hooked up to a computer network) across the Internet, using the IP suite, which we'll come back to later, the primary role of the IP is to determine what networks are connected to which other networks as a part of the Internet. In knowing which networks link with which other networks, IP can figure out the routing paths along which these datagrams can be sent.

A brief interlude from IP while we talk about datagrams.

I think that I could grasp the general feel of datagrams, enough to put them into simpler terms for myself to understand at least. A datagram is comprised of two parts, the first of these being a sort of label, called a header, in which the identifiable information is stored and which means that routing can take place without any sort of preconceived knowledge regarding that datagram on the behalf of the network and the equipment. The second part is the data itself, the actual information that is being sent from one host to another.

So, at this point in time, we can see that the datagram is within the IP. And that the IP's job is to work with addressing, figuring out what the unique IP address is, figuring out what is within the datagram and then figuring out which networks to use to send that datagram along to get to the host it's labelled for. We can also see that the IP is a part of the Internet Protocol Suite.

But "What is the IP suite?" I hear you say (in a tone that suggests you just stopped tearing your hair out with your hands in exasperation long enough to hear me).

Well, again, doing that little extra bit of researching worked to locate a couple of little things that could help me.

First of all, the Internet Protocol Suite is often referred to as TCP/IP, because the original program (the Transmission Control Program of 1974) included both IP and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which is still widely used today, although not by all devices. TCP/IP determines five things about data: how it should be formatted, addressed, transmitted, routed and received at the destination. To do this, the suite has four layers that are each individually governed by their own rules. Like I said, each layer is individual, or abstracted, which means that via the process of encapsulation, the stack is divided into the four components. What the process of encapsulation does is determine which functions of a particular layer are different from the functions of the other layers either by inclusion or information hiding (which is when the aspects of a design that are most susceptible to change are separated from aspects that can not be changed or else risk facing complete destruction) such that a sort of ranking of the layers can be made, determinate of the more abstracted being at the top of the stack and the more specific being at the bottom (referred to as the upper layer protocol and lower layer protocol respectively). Each higher layer adds more features.

The lowest of the TCP/IP layers is the link layer. Also called the ethernet, this layer contains the communication technology for a local network, which is a smaller computer network mainly for computers at home or school.

The next layer is the internet layer, which is where IP addresses come into play, connecting local networks together and consequently establishing internetworking.

Following this we have the transport layer, handling all host-to-host communication.

Finally, at the very top of the protocol stack we have the application layer, where all the protocols for specific data communications services on a process-to-process level are contained. It is here that the protocol for how a browser communicates with a web server is determined.

And so, after all of that research, that is the point at where I realised the power that this blog had. By enabling me to go back and kind of re-think the work that had been done in the lecture (on both my behalf as a listener, and on Prof. Long's behalf as a lecturer) I was able to understand better some of the terminology and what was being discussed. I am in no ways implying that I definitely understand everything. Still a lot of it goes flying over my head, but the point is that I can sort of grasp the concepts a little bit more. So before, when I viewed this blog as yet another tedious task intent on stealing all my spare time, I was certain that I would learn nothing from this except how to handle failure gracefully. Now I am thinking, perhaps "how to just pass with grace" might be a better song to sing.



Image available: http://internet-texpert.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/virtual-internet-protocol.html 

Olympics: Really for All the World to See?

With the London 2012 Olympic Games currently underway, having started as of Friday 27th July, viewers across the world are tuning into their television sets to make sure that they don't miss their favourite event, be it swimming, shooting, hockey (my personal fave) or indeed any of the other 36 sports that comprise the modern Olympic Games.

But being that we are in the "modern age", indeed, that we are in the modern age of technology, why is  it that there are such a strict set of guidelines on what elements of the Games can and can't be uploaded over the Internet?

Here's how it all started: I'm going to assume that you all watched the opening ceremony. Maybe not at 6am but perhaps in the afternoon when it was repeated around 3 o'clock. Well, my brother, dad and myself are those kind of crazy people who get up early of a morning any way so we had no problem getting up early to watch it live at 6. I really liked it and so did my brother. Our favourite part was Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean playing the keyboard for "Chariots of Fire". My brother tried to look it up on YouTube and watch it again. However, when he attempted to do this, locating a video he thought would work, a message of some similar description to "This video has been deleted due to copyright infringements" appeared. Then today, in the process of writing this post, I looked up the same set of words again. I found a video that worked except several sections of the clip had been cut and chopped and moved about, different from how I remember them being on the actual event.

Now, I understand about the copyright laws and privacy policies attached to uploading content onto the Internet. Maybe not as much as I should know, but I understand the basic idea behind it. But I've never really considered the power that an institute or an organisation has such that they can just demand that a video be removed. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) are very strict indeed when it comes to knowing their rights, whether it be against content on the Internet, or in dealing with companies who want to use the Olympic logo (the five rings) for some promotional campaign. And with a logo that was recognised by more than 93% of the world in 2001, I'm pretty sure you have to be that guarded when it comes to who uses your symbol, your footage, basically everything that constitutes you as an organisation.

It's a very interesting topic for me, something that I guess I really hadn't given that much thought to apart from what I knew. Everything that I've uploaded has been either original content or something that I've specified where it came from, placed a reference at the bottom of the page or something. So this is something that I can say with confidence I'm looking forward too throughout this course. Finding out more about the legality side of the Internet and indeed the Web.

Who knows. Maybe I'll learn how to source down a legit copy of Mr. Bean at the Olympics!


Image available: http://questgarden.com/97/47/3/100301103814/

World Domination

Much like the mullet hairstyle of the 80's, the daisy chain necklaces of the 60's and the high-waisted bootleg jeans of the 70's, social networking has clearly become a fast paced trend that the world is just dying to keep up with. But is it really just a trend? Has it actually, in all its platforms and programs, become a way of life?

If you look back over the years, early networking technology gave humanity the chance to communicate effectively and easily, with merely the push of a few simple buttons and the lift of a handle. I am of course talking about the telephone. Back in those days, telephones were necessary items for a household to have. They simply made life easier. People didn't have to wait as long for information to come to them (sorry postman, your job just became outdated), and although there was still a human involved at the switchboard, it was the speed and the up-to-date feel that everybody loved. And I mean everybody. All generations looked at the telephone as being "for the better". Wars were won with the use of the telephone. Everybody loved that. The telephone gave the chance for everybody to move forward at the same pace.

So why then are not all generations looking at social networking, which in its own way has become the telephone of today, with as much excitement and desire as they did for the telephone? Perhaps, in Grandma's own special way, she's trying to tell you, through all the disregard and "back in my day" comments, that this new technological world is just moving at too fast a pace for her poor mobility scooter to keep up with. Not every generation is able to move forward at that same pace that the telephone did. I mean, the telephone really was a device that no one understood how to use. Everyone was learning at roughly the same time.

But with social networking sites, it's the teens who were at the forefront of the learning curve, leading the way instead of watching what mum and dad were doing and going from there. And I guess, the further that we get ahead with our advanced social networking understandings the further Gran and Gramps get left behind.

And here's something to make the situation even more dire for the more mature social networkers: as I understand it, you can now buy shares in Facebook and with the release this week of the financial results for the first quarter of public trading, a lot of eyes are looking at Facebook to see what it will do next. Which, rumours have it, apparently means making their own phone.

The "Buffy" phone (I don't understand where the name comes from either) would totally centre around social networking. Now, I get that you 'must' see what your next-door-neighbour's-sister's-cat'sbest-friend is up to, but really?! To need a device that is totally centred around YOU and YOUR connections to people is a bit much. I mean, is nothing sacred any more?

As Carolina Milanesi, an analyst for technology research centre Gartner sees, "The reality is that most consumers are perfectly happy with an app on their current phone. We believe that a deeper integration of Facebook on the current operating systems iOS, Android and Windows Phone will deliver a much wider addressable market to Facebook than not a dedicated phone. And what is social about if not the mass market?" (BBC, 2012)

So maybe what we need to look at is this: we live in an age where a single company came, in someways, have supreme domination over all of our lives. Maybe Gran and all her rants actually have a point. We have come a long way from the days of telephones. Yet, at that time, the Bell company reigned supreme. Is there some possibility that we are stuck in an endless loop, continually to fall inferior to some dominating technology company? How long will it be until the days of robot domination whence we all succumb to our evil automaton overlords and cry, "have mercy on our souls!"?

Now there's a picture, hey?


For further readings: Facebook: The Challenges Ahead for the Social Network (BBC report, 2012)


Image available: http://jamiemcintyre.com/facebook-shares-pushed-100billion-market/

Swamped At The Start By The Smarts

So yesterday was the first day back at university for many a student, including myself. All throughout the holidays I was looking forward to going back to uni. Some might even say that I was excited for the prospect of returning back to the intellectual stimulation. However, what I did not expect was for that excited feeling to almost instantly vanish after attending my first lecture, INFS1300.

"The Web from the Inside Out" did seem like a computer-y subject when I enrolled, but it was listed in my planner as being an essential course for those doing communication. I'm doing a dual degree of B. of Journalism and B. of Communication and I assumed therefore, that what I would be learning would be more about how computer-mediated communication is changing the way we look at communication. But no. This was not to be and my poor, holiday relaxed brain had to immediately fire up and pay attention to what I am expecting will be my hardest subject this semester. A lot of the content was about the schematics and technical elements of the web. Indeed, reference was made to several acronyms that I have never heard of before. For that reason, I felt as though I was a thousand years behind everybody else in the course. They all seemed to know what was going on. Poor little me was just sitting there, trying not the get too swamped with all the information, trying not to panic, trying not to burst into tears at the prospect of failing a "smart person" course.

I have never been really good at computer things and now doing a whole course about it scares the pants off me. And the only other thing that really scares the pants off me is bridges over water. Not troubled water, just water in which I could drown. No singing, please. I have never been a lazy student, yet I feel as though this course is going to make me put in 130 000% effort. I will do it. I can do it. I'm striving for a pass, rather than an exceptional grade, but still. A little heads up from the communication department would have been nice. We also already have assessment for it, which is freaking me out. But, like I said, I can and will do it. Focus! I'm like a student study Nazi! Only without the whole destroy the Jewish, must have moustache elements.

This is actually my second blog that I have at the moment. The first started off as an assessment blog for a journalism class, in which I discussed an event that happened each day throughout history. It was a bit intense, writing something that hard each day so I've changed that one. It's now a review blog for films, television, music and books, all things that I love to pieces! I'm going to try and post once a week for that one so if you want to have a look at it you can view it at http://todayscritics.blogspot.com.au

So yeah. That's my understanding of INFS so far. Hopefully, I'll start to understand some things some more as the course continues. And hopefully this blog progresses as well, as I learn more about how to use a blogging site better because really, I'm just making it up as I go along!