Webliography Responses
For guidelines on making your Responses to your peers' Critical Annotated Webliographies, please see details here.
posted by Unknown @ 8:40 AM
0 comments
Self.Net -- Monday 2pm Tutorial (Tama's Group)
This is the weblog belonging to the Monday, 2pm tutorial group for the unit 'Self.Net: Communicating Identity in the Digital Age.' (with Tama Leaver as tutor).
Monday, September 06, 2004
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Re fromatted Webliography
Guiding Question:
“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project [VHP], technological ‘progress’ has always forced society to re-evaluate the meaning of ‘life’.” Discuss critically
Introduction:
I noted several key words to help research this question: “Frankenstein”, “VHP”, “technological ‘progress’” and “meaning of life”. Initially, I re-read both of Catherine Waldby’s articles in the reader, to get an idea of some themes to explore[1]. From these articles I developed some basic ideas in relation to the guiding question; firstly, ‘VHP technology displaces the body in a ‘simulated’ space and computerized data creates living flesh from the dead’, secondly ‘the creation of Frankenstein to modern robots/AI raises religious issues about ‘life’, what is life and our position in nature?’. My next step was to search the internet through ‘Google’, ‘Yahoo’, and the UWA Library website. I searched for other related Catherine Waldby articles, terms like ‘Robot’, ‘AI’, ‘Technological Progress’, “Frankenstein’, ‘VHP’ and lastly, ‘Life’. From these searches I developed several major areas through which to answer the guiding question: ‘Technological Progress and Singularity’, ‘Frankenstein and AI/Robotics’ and ‘VHP and Genetic Enhancement’. I classified articles found under these headings, in relation to how the meaning of ‘life’ has been changed, and discovered a growing tension between ‘science’ and ‘nature’ and ideas of life as technology has progressed.
Technological Progress and Singularity
Technological singularity[2] identified the possible consequences of technological progress, and introduced some common theories by Dr. Vernor Vinge and Moore’s Law. This article raised the idea of whether human life will come to an end, and touched some of the anxieties that are intrinsically linked with technology and were discussed in Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’. Because this article is limited due to being an encyclopaedia article it acted only as a stepping stone in giving me some basic ideas, however it enabled me to decide to pursue the idea of ‘technological singularity’ in other search areas to see whether articles might connect it more closely with the other terms I was interested in.
James Bell’s[3] article further incorporated the idea of ‘singularity’ with the argument I wished to develop. Bell remarks that ‘technological progress is driving… toward a “Singularity”… [where] technology and nature will have become one. At this juncture… new definitions of “life”, “nature” and “human” will take hold[4].’ This article explicitly brings out how technology is changing the view of “life”. It establishes the thread of the dichotomy that exists between technology and nature. This dichotomy is being broken down through progress and its uncontrolled development[5]. I would then be able to use this article to illustrate the development in GNR[6] technology that allows them to self ‘replicate’ e.g. give ‘life’ to another version of themselves.
Frankenstein and AI/Robotics
Roger Clarke’s[7] article provided information on Asimov, a central figure in robotics. It noted Asimov’s view, from as early as 1940, of where robots would stand in comparison to humans[8]. The article serves to establish that robots would be viewed as ‘slaves’ to human control, but that this would also be impossible to ensure as robots developed consciousness, and became more ‘human like’ and viewed themselves as part of humanity. The article critically analyses Asimov’s work, posing the question at one stage that if a robot ‘is human enough, he would be accepted as a human[9]’. In forming my argument I would use this article to establish that robots would become like humans, no matter what laws were developed to restrict them, and that this would lead to questions about how we distinguish humans as living and robots as not. If there comes a time where one cannot be distinguished from the other, how can we say robots are not alive, and that they should be slaves?
Dr. Garis[10] highlights moral dilemmas of AI machines; he is a prominent figure working in this area, giving his paper authority in this field. He illustrates ideas connected with the construction of ‘brain-like computers containing…artificial neurons[11]’. This raises ideas associated with how we might view ‘life’, especially in regards to humans. One definition of human life would be our ability to think rationally, is this what separates us from animals? However, Dr. Garis illustrates that AI will be able to think, and be superior in intelligence to humans. He also raises issues of AI experimenting with ‘Darwinian evolution’ on themselves. His article notes the relation between human and AI, and their meaning of life, integral to my essay question.
Mooney[12] notes interesting points associated with humanity and its use of technology to set itself aside from animals. He notes that it was technological progress, new and unknown sciences that made Shelly question life, creation, nature and religion. This has implications for my question. His discussion of “Frankenstein” links with the VHP in the notion of humans being broken down into parts due to technology, removing the divine and natural idea of ‘life’ and associating more with science and anatomy, the use of corpses, a taboo, similar to VHP. He further notes the dichotomy between invention and birth and how life is connected to female creation, and that male invention is connected with death[13]. This would link Frankenstein and VHP together, and follow the thread of science/nature. However, his article I assume is for academic purposes[14].
VHP and Genetic Enhancement
Waldby[15] further discusses issues raised by Mooney about the breakdown between science and nature. She raises serious issues in reference to human life (a term central to my question) linked to the VHP: the issue of flesh into binary code to create living matter, the idea of reproduction of the body removed from the female and instead through technology, the dead body used to discover life, life as an abstract force of animation/simulation and dismemberment/re-memberement of body. She highlights the idea that technology is removing life from birth and that it is becoming an ‘economy’[16]. Waldby is informative, and she proves her authority on the subject, having written a number of other articles linked to the study of the VHP. She would also be helpful in positioning human life in terms of technology and links on to ideas associated with genetic engineering of human life.
Bailey’s[17] article is written in a highly political and journalistic style, however it gives some insights into the differences of opinion related to scientific progress. He makes an interesting comment on how the magic of life has been removed by technology, and that it may not act supportive of human development, but change it completely, as in genetic engineering. Bailey discusses concerns raised by Wolfson about human design and perfection. Bailey’s article, although coming from a magazine, highlights how society’s view of human life is challenged by new technology. His article picks up on a fear similarly found in Shelly’s novel of new technology and the nature of uncovering that human life is no longer divine, but can be interfered with.
Conclusion
These articles addressed each area of the question, and under the sections I decided to investigate, provided and adequate base with which I could generate an argument. The meaning of ‘Life’ has been re-evaluated due to technology, as the boundary between nature and science has become increasingly blurred. The use of human bodies in the VHP, and the adjustments to human life by technology, as well as the possibility to create humanlike robots, has confused these boundaries. It becomes increasingly difficult to identify life, when the dead can be re- animated through computer code, and machines are able to think and replicate themselves. The maternal mother is now under threat of being replaced by the male inventor, who gives birth to genetically modified humans, and AI that can out surpass us in intelligence.
Footnotes!
[1] Waldby, Catherine. “The Visible Human Project: An Initial History”, in The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp.1-18. And, Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture”. Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002, 28-37. Her two articles cover issues on technology and how it has changed our views of the ‘body’ (VHP) and ‘life’ (Frankenstein and Cyberculture) and mentioned ethical and moral dilemmas of technology.
[2] Wikipedia, “Technological Singularity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity, (last modified 2004), last accessed 2.9.04 The idea of technological singularity involves technological progress accelerating beyond human understanding, and the idea of smarter-than-human intelligence which humans may be unable to influence or predict the consequences of their creation.
[3] Bell, James, “Technotopia and the death of nature”, Earth Island Journal, http://80-gateway.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000116101305&svc_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=html&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=20923, 2002, last accessed 2.9.04
[4] Bell, James 2002.
[5] Bell quotes Kevin Kelly’s idea that the ‘realm of the born… (nature) and realm of made… (human construction) are becoming one’. This quote could be used to highlight how technology is confusing the creation of life, and how its whole meaning will change when technological singularity is reached, and progress is uncontrolled (Bell, James, 2002).
[6] GNR= genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, Bell, James 2002.
[7] Clarke, Roger, “Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Implications for Information Technology”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html, 1994, last accessed 2.9.04.
[8] Asimov’s Laws establish that a robot’s ‘meaning of life’ will be subservient to that of humans, they are by nature of the meaning of the word ‘robot’, slaves (Clarke, Roger, 1994)
[9] Clarke, Roger, 1994.
[10] De Garis, Hugo, “The 21st Century Artilect: Moral Dilemmas Concerning the Ultra Intelligent Machine”, http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/Artilect-phil.html, 1989, last accessed 2.9.04.
[11] De Garis, Hugo, 1989.
[12] Mooney, Adam, “The Dilemma of Artificial Nature: Forbidden Knowledge in Frankenstein and The Terminator”, Dystopian Science Fiction and Technofear – Artificial Nature, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~admoon/essay/04_artificial_nature.htm, 1995, last accessed 2.9.04
[13] However he goes on to break down this positive/negative dichotomy between natural birth and scientific invention and establishes that technology is part of human nature and we come to view established technologies as natural e.g. no one today finds a plane flying in the sky to be an unnatural or frightening phenomenon (Mooney, 1995).
[14] However, the quality/clarity of his writing, and the substantial amount of references of academic quality and links to notable Universities, made me evaluate this work to be of a suitable academic nature.
[15] Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html, last accessed1.09.04.
[16] “…if the force of Life is understood as informational code, the program of Life itself can be rewritten.” And … “any technique which seeks to replicate living matter involves the effacement of the maternal body as point of origin, even when, in practice, no technique has been able to dispense with maternal bodies completely” and further “…biomedical fantasizing about human life and Life in general as an informational economy which can be animated, reproduced, written and rewritten, through biomedical management”, (Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, 2004).
[17] Bailey, Ronald, “Right- Wing Technological Dread” Reason Online Magazine, http://reason.com/rb/rb013101.shtml, 2001, last accessed 2.9.04
“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project [VHP], technological ‘progress’ has always forced society to re-evaluate the meaning of ‘life’.” Discuss critically
Introduction:
I noted several key words to help research this question: “Frankenstein”, “VHP”, “technological ‘progress’” and “meaning of life”. Initially, I re-read both of Catherine Waldby’s articles in the reader, to get an idea of some themes to explore[1]. From these articles I developed some basic ideas in relation to the guiding question; firstly, ‘VHP technology displaces the body in a ‘simulated’ space and computerized data creates living flesh from the dead’, secondly ‘the creation of Frankenstein to modern robots/AI raises religious issues about ‘life’, what is life and our position in nature?’. My next step was to search the internet through ‘Google’, ‘Yahoo’, and the UWA Library website. I searched for other related Catherine Waldby articles, terms like ‘Robot’, ‘AI’, ‘Technological Progress’, “Frankenstein’, ‘VHP’ and lastly, ‘Life’. From these searches I developed several major areas through which to answer the guiding question: ‘Technological Progress and Singularity’, ‘Frankenstein and AI/Robotics’ and ‘VHP and Genetic Enhancement’. I classified articles found under these headings, in relation to how the meaning of ‘life’ has been changed, and discovered a growing tension between ‘science’ and ‘nature’ and ideas of life as technology has progressed.
Technological Progress and Singularity
Technological singularity[2] identified the possible consequences of technological progress, and introduced some common theories by Dr. Vernor Vinge and Moore’s Law. This article raised the idea of whether human life will come to an end, and touched some of the anxieties that are intrinsically linked with technology and were discussed in Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’. Because this article is limited due to being an encyclopaedia article it acted only as a stepping stone in giving me some basic ideas, however it enabled me to decide to pursue the idea of ‘technological singularity’ in other search areas to see whether articles might connect it more closely with the other terms I was interested in.
James Bell’s[3] article further incorporated the idea of ‘singularity’ with the argument I wished to develop. Bell remarks that ‘technological progress is driving… toward a “Singularity”… [where] technology and nature will have become one. At this juncture… new definitions of “life”, “nature” and “human” will take hold[4].’ This article explicitly brings out how technology is changing the view of “life”. It establishes the thread of the dichotomy that exists between technology and nature. This dichotomy is being broken down through progress and its uncontrolled development[5]. I would then be able to use this article to illustrate the development in GNR[6] technology that allows them to self ‘replicate’ e.g. give ‘life’ to another version of themselves.
Frankenstein and AI/Robotics
Roger Clarke’s[7] article provided information on Asimov, a central figure in robotics. It noted Asimov’s view, from as early as 1940, of where robots would stand in comparison to humans[8]. The article serves to establish that robots would be viewed as ‘slaves’ to human control, but that this would also be impossible to ensure as robots developed consciousness, and became more ‘human like’ and viewed themselves as part of humanity. The article critically analyses Asimov’s work, posing the question at one stage that if a robot ‘is human enough, he would be accepted as a human[9]’. In forming my argument I would use this article to establish that robots would become like humans, no matter what laws were developed to restrict them, and that this would lead to questions about how we distinguish humans as living and robots as not. If there comes a time where one cannot be distinguished from the other, how can we say robots are not alive, and that they should be slaves?
Dr. Garis[10] highlights moral dilemmas of AI machines; he is a prominent figure working in this area, giving his paper authority in this field. He illustrates ideas connected with the construction of ‘brain-like computers containing…artificial neurons[11]’. This raises ideas associated with how we might view ‘life’, especially in regards to humans. One definition of human life would be our ability to think rationally, is this what separates us from animals? However, Dr. Garis illustrates that AI will be able to think, and be superior in intelligence to humans. He also raises issues of AI experimenting with ‘Darwinian evolution’ on themselves. His article notes the relation between human and AI, and their meaning of life, integral to my essay question.
Mooney[12] notes interesting points associated with humanity and its use of technology to set itself aside from animals. He notes that it was technological progress, new and unknown sciences that made Shelly question life, creation, nature and religion. This has implications for my question. His discussion of “Frankenstein” links with the VHP in the notion of humans being broken down into parts due to technology, removing the divine and natural idea of ‘life’ and associating more with science and anatomy, the use of corpses, a taboo, similar to VHP. He further notes the dichotomy between invention and birth and how life is connected to female creation, and that male invention is connected with death[13]. This would link Frankenstein and VHP together, and follow the thread of science/nature. However, his article I assume is for academic purposes[14].
VHP and Genetic Enhancement
Waldby[15] further discusses issues raised by Mooney about the breakdown between science and nature. She raises serious issues in reference to human life (a term central to my question) linked to the VHP: the issue of flesh into binary code to create living matter, the idea of reproduction of the body removed from the female and instead through technology, the dead body used to discover life, life as an abstract force of animation/simulation and dismemberment/re-memberement of body. She highlights the idea that technology is removing life from birth and that it is becoming an ‘economy’[16]. Waldby is informative, and she proves her authority on the subject, having written a number of other articles linked to the study of the VHP. She would also be helpful in positioning human life in terms of technology and links on to ideas associated with genetic engineering of human life.
Bailey’s[17] article is written in a highly political and journalistic style, however it gives some insights into the differences of opinion related to scientific progress. He makes an interesting comment on how the magic of life has been removed by technology, and that it may not act supportive of human development, but change it completely, as in genetic engineering. Bailey discusses concerns raised by Wolfson about human design and perfection. Bailey’s article, although coming from a magazine, highlights how society’s view of human life is challenged by new technology. His article picks up on a fear similarly found in Shelly’s novel of new technology and the nature of uncovering that human life is no longer divine, but can be interfered with.
Conclusion
These articles addressed each area of the question, and under the sections I decided to investigate, provided and adequate base with which I could generate an argument. The meaning of ‘Life’ has been re-evaluated due to technology, as the boundary between nature and science has become increasingly blurred. The use of human bodies in the VHP, and the adjustments to human life by technology, as well as the possibility to create humanlike robots, has confused these boundaries. It becomes increasingly difficult to identify life, when the dead can be re- animated through computer code, and machines are able to think and replicate themselves. The maternal mother is now under threat of being replaced by the male inventor, who gives birth to genetically modified humans, and AI that can out surpass us in intelligence.
Footnotes!
[1] Waldby, Catherine. “The Visible Human Project: An Initial History”, in The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp.1-18. And, Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture”. Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002, 28-37. Her two articles cover issues on technology and how it has changed our views of the ‘body’ (VHP) and ‘life’ (Frankenstein and Cyberculture) and mentioned ethical and moral dilemmas of technology.
[2] Wikipedia, “Technological Singularity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity, (last modified 2004), last accessed 2.9.04 The idea of technological singularity involves technological progress accelerating beyond human understanding, and the idea of smarter-than-human intelligence which humans may be unable to influence or predict the consequences of their creation.
[3] Bell, James, “Technotopia and the death of nature”, Earth Island Journal, http://80-gateway.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000116101305&svc_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=html&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=20923, 2002, last accessed 2.9.04
[4] Bell, James 2002.
[5] Bell quotes Kevin Kelly’s idea that the ‘realm of the born… (nature) and realm of made… (human construction) are becoming one’. This quote could be used to highlight how technology is confusing the creation of life, and how its whole meaning will change when technological singularity is reached, and progress is uncontrolled (Bell, James, 2002).
[6] GNR= genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, Bell, James 2002.
[7] Clarke, Roger, “Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Implications for Information Technology”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html, 1994, last accessed 2.9.04.
[8] Asimov’s Laws establish that a robot’s ‘meaning of life’ will be subservient to that of humans, they are by nature of the meaning of the word ‘robot’, slaves (Clarke, Roger, 1994)
[9] Clarke, Roger, 1994.
[10] De Garis, Hugo, “The 21st Century Artilect: Moral Dilemmas Concerning the Ultra Intelligent Machine”, http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/Artilect-phil.html, 1989, last accessed 2.9.04.
[11] De Garis, Hugo, 1989.
[12] Mooney, Adam, “The Dilemma of Artificial Nature: Forbidden Knowledge in Frankenstein and The Terminator”, Dystopian Science Fiction and Technofear – Artificial Nature, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~admoon/essay/04_artificial_nature.htm, 1995, last accessed 2.9.04
[13] However he goes on to break down this positive/negative dichotomy between natural birth and scientific invention and establishes that technology is part of human nature and we come to view established technologies as natural e.g. no one today finds a plane flying in the sky to be an unnatural or frightening phenomenon (Mooney, 1995).
[14] However, the quality/clarity of his writing, and the substantial amount of references of academic quality and links to notable Universities, made me evaluate this work to be of a suitable academic nature.
[15] Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html, last accessed1.09.04.
[16] “…if the force of Life is understood as informational code, the program of Life itself can be rewritten.” And … “any technique which seeks to replicate living matter involves the effacement of the maternal body as point of origin, even when, in practice, no technique has been able to dispense with maternal bodies completely” and further “…biomedical fantasizing about human life and Life in general as an informational economy which can be animated, reproduced, written and rewritten, through biomedical management”, (Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, 2004).
[17] Bailey, Ronald, “Right- Wing Technological Dread” Reason Online Magazine, http://reason.com/rb/rb013101.shtml, 2001, last accessed 2.9.04
Biblio/Weblio
Text Articles For Initial Reference: Waldby, Catherine. “The Visible Human Project: An Initial History”, in The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London and New York: Routledge, 2000
Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture”. Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002
Online Sources Used For Webliography: Bailey, Ronald, “Right- Wing Technological Dread” Reason Online Magazine, http://reason.com/rb/rb013101.shtml, 2001, last accessed 2.9.04
Bell, James, “Technotopia and the death of nature”, Earth Island Journal, http://80-gateway.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000116101305&svc_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=html&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=20923, 2002, last accessed 2.9.04
Clarke, Roger, “Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Implications for Information Technology”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html, 1994, last accessed 2.9.04
De Garis, Hugo, “The 21st Century Artilect: Moral Dilemmas Concerning the Ultra Intelligent Machine”, http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/Artilect-phil.html, 1989, last accessed 2.9.04.
Mooney, Adam, “The Dilemma of Artificial Nature: Forbidden Knowledge in Frankenstein and The Terminator”, Dystopian Science Fiction and Technofear – Artificial Nature, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~admoon/essay/04_artificial_nature.htm, 1995, last accessed 2.9.04
Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html, last accessed 1.09.04
Wikipedia, “Technological Singularity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity, (last modified 2004), last accessed 2.9.04
Other Articles Accessed: Bostrom, Nick, “Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence”, http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html, 2003, last accessed 2.09.04 Capps, Robert, “The Humanoid Race” Wired Magazine, 12.07, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/race.html?pg=1, 2004, last accessed 2.9.04 Rev David, Jones, “Cloning and Stem Cell Research”, http://www.health.thechurch.com.au/scr_027.html, 2001, last accessed 2.09.04 Kunkle, Daniel, “John Von Neumann: Genius of Man and Machine”, http://www.rit.edu/~drk4633/vonNeumann/, 2002, last accessed 2.09.04 Thacker, Eugene. “Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension.” Culture Machine, 3, 2001,http://web.archive.org/web/20030510181251/http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j003/Articles/Thacker/impossible.htm last accessed 2.9.04 Wikipedia, “The Turning Test”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test, last accessed 2.9.04
posted by fluffylittlebunny @ 5:31 PM
2 comments
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
The Horror of the Webliography!
This Webliography is incredibly difficult!! I am finding it impossible to restrict it to 1000 words.
Maybe the problem is in the information being given, or how I am presenting it. I think I shall try breaking down the assessment of the sources into just points about the source.
All I want to do is write the essay!! THat would be so much more fun!!! WHY OH WHY CANT WE WRITE THE ESSAY!!!!!!!!!
Can I put info into the footnotes maybe? That might give me more wordcount to work with.....
That example in the instruction sheet, if you added up the words and used the same amount for 6 - 8 sources, then the conclusion, it SO would of come to more than 1000 words!!
TAMA can we have 1,500!!!????
PLEASE!!!!!!!
posted by fluffylittlebunny @ 11:32 AM
1 comments
Contributors
Previous Posts
- The End of the Course as we know it...
- Reflective post on SELF. NET
- Politics of Playing- Political Simulation Games
- Look Everyone A MUD!!!
- CyberLife's Creatures- Playing Games Simulating Wo...
- Webliography Responses
- Re fromatted Webliography
- The Horror of the Webliography!
- MENU DRIVEN IDENTITY RESPONSE
- Changes to this tutorial blog
Archives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.