I thought that Lev Manovich did a good job in his article explaining why he thinks that the emerging form of big-database could benefit not only the sciences, but also humanities. I absolutely agree that with the development of new technologies and databases, the capacity for scientific research and the study of humans will only improve. However, I did appreciate how Lev Manovich also stated way in which the changes in the way people collect data and manage data could also affect research and people in a negative way. Manovich listed four arguments against his claim that big-databases could affect the sciences t which I agree. I think that the emerging forms of database are a good thing for research, but I do see how they could have questionable influences on the media. The first argument being the amount of data people would have access to With the amount of information that is now able to be stored and accessed by certain companies or individuals, I think that it is a liability having a large amount of information being accessible to one entity or person. For instance, the controversy over the newly developed program by google, where google could access your accout information and use that information for advertising purposes. Large amounts of data do need to be managed properly in order to prevent controversy. The second argument was that not all the information collected online is accurate, which is absolutely true. On social networks people post and comment according to what they want other people to think about them. People can filter what they share or lie about what they share to others. Also certain websites have different political views or outlooks on fact and can interpret information differently. The third argument addressed how information could change through the proxy by which it is obtained. An Anthropologist will gather different information if it is gathered by human interaction rather than through technology or computer data. The information being obtained is subjective based on how it is collected. The fourth argument is that in order to be able to fully use the technology to its full advantage, one must be able to understand the computer language. People will not eb able to benefit from the new form of data if they are not familiar with the proper education.

In Seeing and Writing by Jay David Bolter, the text focuses on the development of writing over the centuries from script and topography to digital writing. Bolter discusses how the alphabet and writing went from being more of a pictorial reading process to a mathematical and generalized process that mimics the old way of writing, but in a more efficient way.(Bolter 679-683)

                With new forms of media and technological advances, writing and reading has become more efficient and standard which makes it more accessible to the world and easier to disperse and read. Bolter reviews various types of visual writing and how they have advanced over time. Modern writing along with pictures and graphics combine both mathematics and literature in order to create a form of written expression that is easily understood and accepted by the modern world.(Bolter 688-689)

                Bolter explains the evolution of graphics and writing as a merger of technology and writing that mimics and improves that of traditional writing, whereas McPherson compares the evolution of new media and codes with cultural reform and movements. In Fragment One  of Race After the Internet, McPherson discusses the development of UNIX as operating system that “is widely understood to embody particular philosophies and cultures of computation.”(McPherson 22) In Fragment Two, McPherson references the 1950’s and 1960’s as being a turning point for both the UNIX and minorities throughout the world. The programming rules of the UNIX seem to mirror the laws enforcing segregation that call for different aspects of the program to be clear, defined and separated during its compilation which supports the words of Brian Kernighan which stated that “controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming”.(McPherson 26) The generalization of UNIX and its components is similar to the generalization of race and is “an approach which separates object from context, cause from effect”(McPherson 27). McPherson’s idea that the progress of programming and understanding the machines is comparable to the understanding of culture is very interesting. She argues that in order to improve new media we cannot generalize programs but rather learn to understand “how computational systems (especially but not only software) are developed and operate. (McPherson 34)